Women's Health

The Senate on Tuesday voted 68-32 to approve an amendment that would prohibit seizures by U.S. Customs and Border Protection of prescription drugs purchased from Canadian pharmacies by U.S. residents, the Los Angeles Times reports (Girion, Los Angeles Times, 7/12). Customs officials have seized thousands of packages of prescription drugs sent from Canadian pharmacies to U.S. residents since Nov. 17, 2005, when the agency began to increase enforcement of federal laws that restrict the purchase of prescription drugs from abroad. The purchase of medications from abroad is illegal, but customs and FDA officials generally have allowed the practice. Some Canadian pharmacy officials have said that they believe the increased seizures are related to the launch of the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. Customs officials in February acknowledged the increased enforcement against the purchase of medications from abroad but said the policy change was not related to the launch of the Medicare prescription drug benefit (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 3/14). Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) proposed the amendment as part of the fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security appropriations bill (Strohm, CongressDaily, 7/11). No Senate Democrats opposed the amendment (McCormack, The Hill, 7/12).

House Bills
The House has approved two FY 2007 appropriations bills — Homeland Security and Agriculture — that include provisions to allow the purchase of prescription drugs from abroad, according to Kirstin Brost, a spokesperson for House Appropriations Committee ranking member David Obey (D-Wis.) (AP/San Francisco Chronicle, 7/12). The provision included in the House Homeland Security appropriations bill would allow the purchase of prescription drugs from any nation (Los Angeles Times, 7/12). According to the AP/Chronicle, the “Bush administration has opposed efforts to loosen the restrictions” on the purchase of prescription drugs from abroad, and FDA officials have said that the agency “cannot guarantee the safety of imported drugs” (AP/San Francisco Chronicle, 7/12).

Reaction
Vitter called the passage of the amendment a “breakthrough” on the issue of prescription drug reimportation and “the first clean vote on the issue in the Senate” (Crowley, CQ Today, 7/11). He added, “We should demand that (Customs and Border Protection) focus on the true priority that we face on the war on terror. Stripping small amounts of prescription drugs from the hands of seniors … should not be a priority.” Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Fla.) said, “This is going to ensure that Americans, especially the frail, elderly or those with debilitating conditions, are going to be able to at least have a chance of affording the medications that they need.” However, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) said that the amendment would lead to “a massive hole in our capacity to secure our borders and protect ourselves.” He added, “If I were a creative terrorist, I would say to myself, ‘Hey, listen, all I’ve got to do is produce a can here that says ‘Lipitor’ on it, make it look like the original Lipitor bottle, which isn’t too hard to do, fill it with anthrax’” (AP/San Francisco Chronicle, 7/11). Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) said, “There’s a profound risk … with respect to these drugs that come in. This is a dangerous, dangerous piece of legislation” (CongressDaily, 7/11). Ken Johnson, a spokesperson for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said that the amendment “undermines the U.S. Customs and Border Protection from doing its job of protecting Americans as well as protecting our borders. It also undermines the government’s ability to assure the American public that our drug supply is safe and secure” (Shields, Baton Rouge Advocate, 7/12). Customs officials did not respond to requests for comment on the amendment (Los Angeles Times, 7/12).

Counterfeit Rx Hearing
In related news, lawmakers and pharmacy industry experts on Tuesday at a House hearing said that FDA should implement federal standards to prevent the entry of counterfeit prescription drugs to the U.S. market, CQ HealthBeat reports. At a House Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources hearing, Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R-Minn.), said, “Ultimately, we’re going to end up with 50 different regulations. What we’ve encountered from the FDA so far is little more than foot dragging.” However, Randall Lutter, acting associate commissioner for policy and planning at FDA, said the agency has taken action to address the issue of counterfeit prescription drugs. FDA in June announced plans to require prescription drug distributors to document the chain of custody, or pedigree, of medications that enter the U.S. market as of Dec. 1. Lutter said that the requirement will not include electronic tracking of prescriptions because the transition to the technology will take time. According to CQ HealthBeat, witnesses at the hearing “advocated the need for ‘track’ and ‘trace’ technologies and said accompanying resources and consistency would be necessary to make the system work.” Carmen Catizone, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, said, “We’re not happy that the states are embarking on this individually without a national standard” (Barrett, CQ HealthBeat, 7/11).

“Reprinted with permission from kaisernetwork. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at kaisernetwork/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

After Scotland implemented a smoking ban in enclosed public places in 2006, cases of childhood asthma have dropped by an average of 18% per year, Glasgow University researchers have revealed in an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). Up to 2006, asthma hospital admission rates had been rising by 5.2% per year for children aged up to 15 years.

The authors reveal that benefits have emerged in both school-age and pre-school children. These findings are completely the opposite to what critics predicted – they feared parents would smoke more at home if they could not do so in pubs, at work or other enclosed public places.

Dr. Jill Pell, University of Glasgow, Scotland, one of the investigators, confirmed that the effect was the opposite to what critics said would happen. She added that people are now accepting that nonsmokers and children need to be protected from tobacco smoke. The legislation was, in fact, followed by more voluntary restrictions on household smoking.

Reductions in asthma-related hospital admissions since 2006 were:

18.4% among preschool children
20.8% among school-age children

The authors wrote that previous studies had revealed a drop in respiratory problems among bar staff, including those who smoke.

Dr. Pell and team gathered data on childhood asthma hospital admissions and asthma deaths dating from the beginning of 2000 up to October 2009, during which five children died of asthma. During that period there were 21,415 childhood asthma related hospital admissions (aged up to 15 years).

From 2000 to 2002 the number of admissions dropped slightly, and then started to rise, peaking in 2006 when the new legislation came into force. From 2006 onwards hospitalization rates started to plummet.

The researchers could not determine whether the drop in asthma hospitalization rates were due to less smoke in enclosed public places or at home. They added that a drop in smoking among schoolchildren could also have been a contributory factor – smoking among schoolchildren dropped from 5% among 13-year-old schoolboys in 2004 to 3% in 2007.

The authors wrote that overall tobacco smoke exposure among schoolchildren was determined by measuring cotinine concentrations in their saliva.

The authors concluded:

In Scotland, passage of smoke-free legislation in 2006 was associated with a subsequent reduction in the rate of respiratory disease in populations other than those with occupational exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.
What is asthma?
Asthma is a disease affecting the airways that carry air to and from your lungs. People who suffer from this chronic condition (long-lasting or recurrent) are said to be asthmatic.

The inside walls of the airways of a person with asthma are swollen or inflamed. This swelling or inflammation makes the airways extremely sensitive to irritations and increases your susceptibility to an allergic reaction.

As inflammation causes the airways to become narrower, less air can pass through them, both to and from the lungs. Symptoms of the narrowing include wheezing (a hissing sound while breathing), chest tightness, breathing problems, and coughing. Asthmatics usually experience these symptoms most frequently during the night and the early morning.

Click here to read about asthma in more detail.
What is secondhand smoke?
Secondhand smoke, also known as passive smoking is the inhalation of tobacco smoke by a non-smoker; the environmental smoke comes from other people’s cigarettes, pipes or cigars. The environmental tobacco smoke is inhaled involuntarily or passively by somebody who is not smoking. ETS stands for environmental tobacco smoke.

“Smoke-free Legislation and Hospitalizations for Childhood Asthma”
Daniel Mackay, Ph.D., Sally Haw, B.Sc., Jon G. Ayres, M.D., Colin Fischbacher, M.B., Ch.B., and Jill P. Pell, M.D.
N Engl J Med 2010; 363:1139-1145September 16, 2010

The July-August issue of the journal Health Affairs focuses on issues related to public health. Several articles are highlighted below.

“The Public Health Workforce 2006: New Challenges”: Kristine Gebbie, an associate professor at the Columbia University School of Nursing, and Bernard Turnock, a professor at the School of Public Health at the University of Illinois at Chicago, examine how growth in the public health workforce over the past 20 years could slow or possibly reverse if the federal government decreases support for terrorism and other threats to public health. Gebbie and Turnock suggest policy changes to alleviate the problem, including improving workforce planning and training; tracking the continuing education of the public health workforce; accrediting public health agencies and organizations; and monitoring the size and composition of the workforce (Gebbie/Turnock, Health Affairs, July-August 2006).

“The Personal Assistance Workforce: Trends in Supply and Demand”: H. Stephen Kaye — a professor at the Institute for Health and Aging at the University of California-San Francisco — and colleagues examine how the number of personal assistance workers, who help with activities such as bathing and dressing, could decrease because of cuts to Medicaid, low wages and health benefits, and high job turnover rates. Although the number of personal assistance workers has increased during the past 15 years, it will become increasingly difficult to attract and retain skilled workers if conditions do not improve, the authors write. Meanwhile, the number of patients requiring such services is expected to increase from 13 million in 2000 to 27 million in 2050 (Kaye et al., Health Affairs, July-August 2006).

“Putting the Public in Public Health: New Approaches,” Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association and a lecturer at the School of Public Health and Health Services at George Washington University, in a perspective piece examines new approaches to health care reform that engage the public, the business community and policymakers. Benjamin writes that for the public health system to be transformed, the public must practice individual wellness, the business community must view public health as necessary for a healthy business climate and productive workforce, and policymakers must agree that improved public health can benefit communities (Benjamin, Health Affairs, July-August 2006).

“A Vision for a Healthier America: What the States Can Do,” In a perspective piece responding to an article that highlighted the success of Arkansas legislation to combat childhood obesity, Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) examines state governments’ role in promoting healthy lifestyles and preventing disease. According to Huckabee, governors can shift attitudes toward wellness through programs in communities, businesses and schools (Huckabee, Health Affairs, July-August 2006).

“The Prevention Challenge and Opportunity,” In a perspective piece, David Satcher — former U.S. Surgeon General, interim president of the Morehouse School of Medicine and director of the Center of Excellence on Health Disparities — discusses areas in which the U.S. needs to increase its investment in preventive care. According to Satcher, preventive care is undervalued and poorly supported in the current U.S. health care system. Satcher writes that although there are challenges in implementing prevention programs, such programs will improve health, prevent pain and suffering, and lead to the development of a balanced and affordable health system (Satcher, Health Affairs, July-August 2006).

“Reprinted with permission from kaisernetwork. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at kaisernetwork/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

12.5% of babies are born premature in the USA, that is a total of half a million babies each year – an increase of over 30% during the last twenty-five years, according to two new reports, one by the Institute of Medicine and the other by the National Institutes of Health. Helping premature babies survive is costing the USA $26 billion each year. Doctors say there should be more ultrasound exams during pregnancy. Others are calling for stricter fertility treatment guidelines.

The good news is that more pre-term babies are surviving and fewer teenagers are giving birth. However, the USA ranks 23rd in infant mortality when compared to other developed nations. Even though infant mortality is going down in America – in 2003, 6.8 babies of every 1,000 died during their first year, down from 7 per 1,000 in 2002 – other developed nations have been surging ahead at a much faster rate. The average infant mortality rate in the European Union, which includes its new Eastern European members, is 5 per 1,000.

8.1% of babies were born with a low birthweight in 2004, up from 7.9% in 2003 in the USA. A baby is considered to be of low birthweight when he/she is under 5.5lbs (2.5 kilos).

Dr. Jay Iams, Ohio State University, co-author of one of the new reports, says it is virtually impossible for health care professionals to predict who is going to give birth early. He says we urgently need to carry out research into better predicting pre-term births.

The authors say many pregnant mothers live under the illusion that a pre-term birth is no big deal. They believe modern medicine will sort everything out and their bouncing baby will thrive, even is he/she is born premature.

Dr. Iams states that having a pre-term baby is a big deal. It is a problem that is not appreciated by the US public.

A premature baby is one that is born before 38-42 weeks of pregnancy, before the 37th week is complete. The earlier the baby is born the greater is his/her risk of having devastating disabilities, such as cerebral palsy and mental retardation.

There are some indications which may point towards a higher risk of giving birth prematurely. For example:

– If the mother gave birth prematurely before

– If the mother is going to give birth to twins or triplets

– Afro-American women are much more likely to give birth early than white or Hispanic women – even when the women have similar incomes, education and access to good health care.

– Women who have become pregnant as a result of fertility treatment. Even if they are carrying just one child.

– Extremely young mothers and mothers over 35

– Women who are poor

– Women who smoke

– Women who do not have access to prenatal care

– Women who are under a lot of stress

– Women who are obese

However, most health care experts agree that it is very hard to predict who is going to give birth too early.

Infant Mortality Rates, 2006

Lithuania – 6.78

Croatia – 6.72

United States – 6.43

Taiwan – 6.29

Cuba – 6.22

Korea, South – 6.16

Faroe Islands – 6.12
Italy – 5.83
Isle of Man – 5.82
Aruba – 5.79

New Zealand – 5.76

San Marino – 5.63

Greece – 5.43

Monaco – 5.35

Ireland – 5.31
Jersey – 5.16
European Union – 5.10

United Kingdom – 5.08

Gibraltar – 5.06

Portugal – 4.98

Netherlands – 4.96

Luxembourg – 4.74

Canada – 4.69

Guernsey – 4.65

Liechtenstein – 4.64

Australia – 4.63

Belgium – 4.62

Austria – 4.60

Denmark – 4.51

Slovenia – 4.40

Spain – 4.37

Macau – 4.35

Switzerland – 4.34

France – 4.21

Germany – 4.12

Andorra – 4.04

Czech Republic – 3.89

Malta – 3.86

Norway – 3.67

Finland – 3.55

Iceland – 3.29

Japan – 3.24

Hong Kong – 2.95

Sweden – 2.76

Singapore – 2.29

Uninsured U.S. residents in 35 cities pay 60% more for the most commonly prescribed medications than the federal government, according to a report released on Tuesday by the U.S Public Interest Research Group, the Baltimore Sun reports (Adams, Baltimore Sun, 7/12). For the report, PIRG affiliates from 35 cities this spring surveyed more than 600 pharmacies about the price uninsured residents younger than age 65 pay for the ten most commonly prescribed medications (U.S. PIRG release, 7/11). According to the report, uninsured residents in the 35 cities paid an average price of $81.31 monthly for the medications, compared with an average price of $50.71 for the federal government. The report finds that uninsured residents in Boston paid the highest average price — about $87.86 monthly — and that those in Des Moines, Iowa, paid the lowest average price — about $74.25 monthly. Delays in market entry of generic versions of medications and direct-to-consumer advertising campaigns by pharmaceutical companies contribute to the higher drug prices paid by uninsured residents, according to the report (Darce, San Diego Tribune, 7/12). U.S. PIRG recommends the legalization of prescription drug reimportation from Canada, earlier market entry of generic versions of medications and the establishment of prescription drug purchasing pools among states to help reduce prescription drug prices for uninsured residents (Baltimore Sun, 7/12).

Comments
The report indicates that uninsured residents do not “have anyone looking out for their drug costs,” Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) said, adding, “They’re left to fend for themselves.” However, lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry criticized the report as a “rigged comparison” because the price paid by the federal government for the medications that researchers used did not include distribution and other costs. Ken Johnson, senior vice president of communications for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said, “Unfortunately, rather than joining us in our effort to help the uninsured, those who issued today’s report are standing on the sidelines trying to make headlines.” Mary Ann Wagner, senior vice president of policy and pharmacy at the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, added, “There is no price control in our country that says a manufacturer must sell at a certain price, that a retail pharmacy must dispense at a certain price” (Henderson, Boston Globe, 7/12).

“Reprinted with permission from kaisernetwork. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at kaisernetwork/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

The American College of Preventive Medicine (acpm/) hosted a web-based conference to discuss the significant public health problem of adolescent violence and bullying. Violence is No Accident: The Role of Health Professionals in Keeping Adolescents Safe, developed under a cooperative agreement with the Health Resources and Services Administration’s Maternal and Child Health Bureau, was held July 13, 2006, at Medscape (medscape/) from WebMD. Continuing medical education (CME/CE) credit can be obtained for participation in this conference.

Two leading specialists on the prevention and treatment of youth violence and bullying, Dr. Howard Spivak, Director of Tufts University Center for Children in Boston, Massachusetts, and Dr. Susan Limber, Associate Director of Clemson University’s Institute on Family and Neighborhood Life in Clemson, South Carolina, delivered presentations and answered audience questions. George Lundberg, Editor-in-Chief of Medscape General Medicine, moderated the session. This free educational session provided critical information for practicing physicians, public health officials, and other front-line health providers who provide primary care to adolescents.

The conference featured an overview of youth violence in the United States, including an analysis of associated risk and resiliency factors, as well as a review of a model violence prevention protocol for primary care providers. The session focused specifically on adolescent bullying, how it affects children, and the roles that providers can play in addressing the problem.

According to the Commission for the Prevention of Youth Violence, almost 40 children and adolescents are killed by violence each week in the United States. Furthermore, the American School Health Association found that 16% of students between the sixth and tenth grades reported being sometimes or frequently bullied. The American Medical Association’s Educational Forum on Adolescent Health asserts that health care professionals play important roles in prevention and treatment of youth violence through their roles as practitioners, educators, and researchers.

###

The American College of Preventive Medicine is the national professional society for physicians whose expertise and interest lie in disease prevention and health promotion (www.acpm). ACPM’s more than 2,000 members are engaged in preventive medicine practice, teaching and research. Medscape from WebMD is the leading provider of online information and educational services for physicians and health care professionals (medscape/).

The American College of Preventive Medicine (ACPM) is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. ACPM designates this educational activity for a maximum of 1.5 category 1 credits towards the AMA Physician’s Recognition Award. Each physician should claim only those credits that he/she actually spent in the activity.

Contact: Jennifer Rogers

American College of Preventive Medicine

The University of Manchester and pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca have signed an agreement to enhance each organisation’s research into diseases such as cancer, inflammatory diseases and diabetes and obesity.

The agreement sets out how the University and AstraZeneca will work together to identify new ways to treat disease and to nurture and enhance discovery, pre-clinical and clinical research in a bid to better understand a variety of conditions. Under the agreement the University and AstraZeneca will exchange staff, share facilities and encourage joint ventures through long-term funded collaborations.

The parties will also focus on enabling technologies such as imaging, informatics and chemistry that have the potential to identify and accelerate drug discovery in a number of different disease areas.

The agreement formalises previous close contacts between the parties such as the appointment of Professor Hans Westerhoff as AstraZeneca Professor of Systems Biology and the development of collaborative science networks.

A key component of the agreement is the shared benefits that will accrue to the parties, including: the faster translation of high-impact science to the clinic and joint efforts to secure the UK science base.

An early example of the collaborative approach has been the establishment of a joint cancer alliance steering group focusing on translational science in the areas of cancer imaging, serological biomarkers of cancer and Phase I cancer clinical trials between AstraZeneca and the Manchester Cancer Research Centre. Early successes from this group include the establishment of a biomarkers network to share expertise between the two parties, a Ј1.25m project over three years focusing on serological markers of cancer; and pre-clinical and clinical fellowships in cancer imaging.

Professor Alan North, University of Manchester Vice-President and Dean of the Faculty of Life Sciences, said: “Teaming up with a company like AstraZeneca will increase our ability to attract the very best researchers, while providing AstraZeneca with access to new technologies, disease models and a large patient research base. The focus that working with AstraZeneca has brought has already helped us to understand how more than 40 individual academics in diverse areas across the University could be grouped together to provide insights into inflammatory diseases such as asthma and arthritis research.”

Dr Les Hughes, Global Vice-President, Cancer and Infection, at AstraZeneca, said: “The University of Manchester is the UK’s largest traditional university and has an impressive track record of research in the fields of Physical and Biomedical Science. This alliance will pool areas of expertise within our respective organisations to further our shared goals of delivering safe and effective medicines to the patients who need them.”

The University of Manchester was formed on October 1st 2004 by the fusion of the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST) and the Victoria University of Manchester (VUM). The resulting institution is one of Europe’s leading higher-education institutions with an unrivalled quality, breadth and volume of research activity. Historically, no fewer than 23 former staff and students have gone on to become Nobel Prize winners. There are more than 50 specialist research centres and groups at the University, each undertaking pioneering research into areas ranging from cancer and arthritis to bioinformatics and imaging analysis.

AstraZeneca is a major international healthcare business engaged in the research, development, manufacture and marketing of prescription pharmaceuticals and the supply of healthcare services. It is one of the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies with healthcare sales of $23.95 billion and leading positions in sales of gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, neuroscience, respiratory, oncology and infection products. AstraZeneca is listed in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (Global) as well as the FTSE4Good Index.

###

Notes to editors:

For further details about AstraZeneca visit
astrazeneca/

For further details about The University of Manchester visit
manchester.ac/

Contact: Aeron Haworth

University of Manchester

The future of clinical ophthalmology may be endangered by the decline in the number of human donor eyes provided by U.S. eye banks according to an article published in the July 2006 issue of Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science (IOVS).

According to a survey of U.S. members of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO), the major prohibitory factor in the use of human eye tissue is lack of availability of tissue meeting stringent criteria. The survey’s conductor, Christine A. Curcio, PhD, of ARVO’s Research Tissue Acquisition Working Group (RTAWG), found that only cost exceeded this factor among those surveyed. Respondents also indicated that local eye banks are the most common tissue source although most investigators use multiple tissues sources, including remote eye banks to acquire adequate human eye tissue needed for research.

The availability of human eye tissue for research has been severely impacted by federal regulations and state laws enacted over the last decade, and some individual eye bank practices may be of importance on a local level (e.g., laws prohibiting medical examiners from releasing eye tissue in cases of violent or suspicious death).

The RTAWG believes that the decline in human research tissue may be managed in the short term by researchers working closely with eye banks and other providers, communicating on a regular basis, and clarifying their experimental needs and expectations.

“No where do impediments to obtaining human eyes for research have more impact than in the effort to understand age-related macular degeneration, the leading cause of new vision loss in the elderly,” said Curcio, a professor of ophthalmology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “Macular degeneration, an advanced form of which now has treatment options, still lacks a laboratory animal model that displays the full range of pathology typifying the human disorder. Thus, human tissues are particularly critical.”

###

IOVS is published by the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO). For more information, logon to iovs/

ARVO is a membership organization of more than 11,500 eye and vision researchers from over 70 countries. Established in 1928, the Association encourages and assists its members and others in research, training, publication and dissemination of knowledge in vision and ophthalmology. ARVO’s headquarters are located in Rockville, Md. For more information about ARVO, logon to arvo/.

Contact: Elinore Tibbetts

Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology

The New York Times on Wednesday examined how “hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from doctors, hospitals, drug manufacturers and insurers” to the re-election campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), are an indication that “Mrs. [Rodham] Clinton has moderated her positions from more than a decade ago.” According to separate analyses conducted by the Times and the Center for Responsive Politics, Rodham Clinton has received $854,462 from the health care industry in 2005-2006, more than all other congressional candidates except Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), who received $977,354. “The financial support is an intriguing turn of events” for Rodham Clinton, who as head of the Task Force on National Health Care Reform formed by former President Bill Clinton in 1993 “provoked a fierce reaction from the industry,” the Times reports. In addition, during her Senate campaign in 2000, Rodham Clinton criticized her opponent for his acceptance of donations from pharmaceutical companies, and in 1993 she accused pharmaceutical companies and health insurers of “price gouging” and “unconscionable profiteering,” according to the Times. Rodham Clinton recently has introduced legislation that would increase Medicare reimbursements to health care providers, reduce the cost of medical malpractice insurance and promote the implementation of health care information technology.

Comments
Charles Kahn — who served as executive vice president of the Health Insurance Association of America in 1993 and 1994, when the organization criticized the health care plan that Rodham Clinton proposed — currently works with her on several issues as president of the Federation of American Hospitals. He said that his previous disagreements with Rodham Clinton are “ancient history,” adding that “she is extremely knowledgeable about health care and has become a congressional leader on the issue.” Frederick Graefe, a health care attorney and lobbyist, said, “People … are contributing to Sen. [Rodham] Clinton today because they fully expect she will be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008.” He added, “If the usual rules apply,” early donors will “get a seat at the table when health care and other issues are discussed.” Tracey Schmitt, a spokesperson for the Republican National Committee, said, “This reveals that Hillary [Rodham] Clinton is a politician more concerned with campaign contributions than policies she claims to support” (Hernandez/Pear, New York Times, 7/12).

“Reprinted with permission from kaisernetwork. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at kaisernetwork/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

The Colorado Legislature on Monday approved a bill that would deny most nonemergency government benefits — including Medicaid and Medicare — to state residents ages 18 and older who fail to prove that they are in the country legally, the AP/Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports. The compromise legislation, part of a package of immigration measures passed by the state Legislature during a special session, was approved 22-13 by the state Senate and 48-15 by the state House (Paulson/Sarche, AP/Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 7/11). The benefits bill (HB 1023) would require state residents to present valid Colorado, military or tribal identification to receive public benefits (Washington/Burnett, Denver Rocky Mountain News, 7/12). The bill — which also applies to unemployment insurance, energy assistance programs, and aging and adult services — would create an exemption to the health benefits denial for beneficiaries with communicable diseases and would set a maximum 18-month jail term for individuals convicted of falsifying documents (Riccardi, Los Angeles Times, 7/12). In addition, it would permit illegal immigrants to continue to receive benefits mandated by the federal government or the U.S. Supreme Court (Denver Rocky Mountain News, 7/12). Gov. Bill Owens (R) called the special session of the state Legislature after the Colorado Supreme Court last month ruled that a ballot initiative on whether illegal immigrants should be denied some government benefits was unconstitutional because the measure considered more than one subject (Kelley, New York Times, 7/12). Owens said the benefits bill “simply puts teeth into existing federal regulations.” He estimated that about 50,000 illegal immigrants could lose benefits under the bill (AP/Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 7/11). Owens said, “My guess is, many other states are going to do what we’ve done here” (Denver Rocky Mountain News, 7/12).

Broadcast Coverage
APM’s “Marketplace” on Tuesday reported on the Colorado law, including implications for immigrants’ use of health care services such as Medicaid. The segment includes comments from Steve Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies; former Colorado Gov. Richard Lamm (D); and John Straayer, professor of political science at Colorado State University (Milne-Tyte, “Marketplace,” APM, 7/11). The complete transcript and audio of the segment in RealPlayer are available online.
NPR’s “All Things Considered” on Tuesday reported on the Colorado law. The segment includes comments from state Sen. Joan Fitzgerald (D), state Rep. Mike May (R), Straayer, and Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff (D) (Greenleese, “All Things Considered,” NPR, 7/11). The complete segment is available online in RealPlayer.

“Reprinted with permission from kaisernetwork. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at kaisernetwork/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.