February 24, 2009 at 3:37 pm (Current Events, Patient Information)
Tags: chiropractic, government, medical, military, veterans
By Guest Writer Holly McCarthy
Looks like vets will get expanded veteran’s benefits that will include coverage of chiropractic care. The American Chiropractic Association is thrilled about the bill, which was introduced into the House in 2007 but may actually move along under this Congress.
What’s really cool about the bill is it will require that a chiropractor be on staff at every VA medical facility by 2012. This would amend the existing Veterans Affairs Health Care Programs Enhancement Act of 2001 and ensure vets get the chiropractic care they seek.
This is all just swell until we think about the fact that, currently, there are only 32 out of more than 150 VA medical facilities who actually have a chiropractor on staff. So, getting our military “aligned” (well, at least from a chiropractic perspective) is still next to impossible. It’s frustrating as we think about the numbers of invasive surgeries, procedures and treatments administered to vets every day when chiropractic is noninvasive and considerably more cost effective than many other procedures.
Seems a little short sighted as Wall Street drives the economy deeper into the red as the government looks for ways to scrimp and save. But, we digress.
Oh, and those 32 VA facilities with chiropractors? Well, this lightning-paced change has been in the works for almost eight years now. We all know things do not move quickly in our government but our vets deserve a little more here.
In the end, unless the current bill makes its way through both houses of Congress, making chiropractic care accessible to all veterans will remain a case-by-case benefit, which we can assume will be painfully slow – if expansion to other facilities happens at all.
And, here’s one last thought to chew on as we close. Almost 50% of vets returning from overseas seek treatment for musculoskeletal problems. You know, those ailments chiropractors treat! And, we treat them more effectively and less expensively, to boot. It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming months/years as the number of returning veterans with musculoskeletal problems continues to increase and funding for them continues to decrease.
This post was contributed by Holly McCarthy. Holly writes on the subject of schools with sports management programs. She invites your feedback at hollymccarthy12 [at] gmail [dot] com
Leave a Comment
February 21, 2009 at 4:01 pm (Current Events, Skepticism)
Tags: astrology, employment, horoscope, idiots, zodiac
“People will accept your ideas much more readily if you tell them Benjamin Franklin said it first.” — David H. Comins
I think it was Benjamin Franklin who once said that the brain is a wonderful organ. It starts working the moment you get up in the morning, and does not stop until you get into the office. *
Speaking of brains not working in offices, have you heard the one about this idiotic firm in Australia? Some Salzburg insurance company recently advertised for sales and management positions and only those born under the signs of Capricorn, Taurus, Aquarius, Aries and Leo were allowed to apply.
An internal statistical study indicated that “almost all” of their best employees had one of those five star signs. The firm decided to continue with their system in hiring new workers.
Having recently read Malcolm Gladwell’s newest book Outliers, I am convinced that birth month might offer some specific advantages in life. Gladwell shows that the month someone is born gives them a distinct advantage for being selected for certain sports teams and thus makes them more likely to become professional athletes. There are also academic advantages to being born at certain times of the year (a first grader who is nine months older than another will be more likely to succeed academically). Why then does it feel so exceedingly ridiculous to use the pseudoscientific zodiac hocus-pocus as criteria for selecting employees?
I think this smells like a back door for other types of discrimination. Don’t like someone’s color or race? Don’t hire them — just be sure to blame it on their birthday. “No, seriously, Sir, your skin color isn’t the problem…it’s the color of your aura that we don’t like.”
And what happens when this insurance company decides to stop insuring Pisces since statistics show they have the most accidents?** Puhlease. Do people still subscribe to this lunacy?
* That quote was actually Robert Frost
** 88.5% of statistics are made up
Leave a Comment
February 19, 2009 at 8:30 pm (Current Events, Evidence Based Medicine, Nutrition, Vegan & Vegetarianism)
Tags: cholesterol, circulation, heart disease, kids, plant-based diet, statins
Looks like the big pharmaceutical companies have another group to push questionable cholesterol lowering drugs on. Following a call for more aggressive screening and treatment of cholesterol in childhood, a new study published in the journal Circulation shows that about 200,000 U.S. teens and preteens need medication to lower their cholesterol.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommended last summer that doctors consider cholesterol-lowering drugs, called statins, for children aged 8 and older if a blood test shows they have high cholesterol, particularly if they have a family history of heart disease. In addition, drug treatment is recommended for lower LDL levels if certain cardiovascular risk factors such as diabetes or obesity are present.
So, how many kids need statins? The study included records from nearly 10,000 children aged 6 to 17 who had a total cholesterol value assessed. The analysis showed that 0.8% qualified for statin treatment based upon the AAP guidelines. Given that there are about 25 million adolescents in the U.S, these data suggest that 200,000 individuals between ages 12 and 17 would qualify for statin treatment to keep their cholesterol levels in check.
The study’s lead author stated, “It is a matter of opinion whether one thinks 0.8% is a small or large percentage. What I think is most important here is that given the rise in childhood obesity and risk factors such as smoking and lack of exercise that adolescents are exposed to, we need to continually assess and monitor the lipid status of children and adolescents.”
Giving statins to kids might be another example of the pharmaceutical companies putting their balance sheet in front of the evidence. Statins are widely prescribed but there is surprisingly little clinical evidence that demonstrates a true preventative benefit for otherwise healthy adults — and even less for children. The American Heart Association recommends lifestyle changes such as increased exercise and healthier eating (did someone say “plant-based diet“?) as the first line of treatment for children who have high cholesterol. Sounds like a better idea than seeing what the life long side effects of statins would be on kids.
Leave a Comment
