Get out of that tanning bed!

When summer comes along, many people just can’t resist lying out in the sun to develop a deep, golden tan. Now, the summer tan is no longer limited to the summertime. The rise of the tanning bed, coupled with the idealization of tanned bodies from shows like the Jersey Shore, has led people—mostly women—to tan year round. Tanning, whether out in the sun or in an indoor tanning bed, can have harmful consequences. Here are the top seven reasons for you to quit tanning once and for all.

1.      Tanning—especially in tanning beds—can actually be habit forming and at worst, addictive. Research has shown that tanning is often habit forming, and some people show behaviors similar to drug and alcohol addicts. In a study reported by ABC News back in April, researchers found that between 30 and 40 percent of individuals who used tanning beds demonstrated the psychiatric diagnostic indicators for addiction.  Some “tanorexics” just can’t stop tanning no matter what they try, while others miss social opportunities just to tan.

1. Melanoma, the most dangerous type of skin cancer, is highly linked to exposure to UV rays. Both tanning beds and the sun produce UVA and UVB rays, and overexposure to UV rays can cause cancer. In particular, melanoma is one of the most common cancers affecting young people, according to the American Academy of Dermatology.

3.      Ultraviolet rays also cause premature aging of the skin. Yes, that means wrinkles.  UV rays break down the collagen in your skin. Collagen keeps your face smooth and wrinkle-free. Do you really want to risk turning your skin into leather just to keep up a Snooki-esque tan?

4.      Proponents of tanning have argued that exposure to sunlight and tanning bed light generates Vitamin D, which may be able to reduce the risk of certain cancers.  However, a recent study showed that high levels of vitamin D weren’t necessarily linked to reduced risk in cancer.

5.      Overexposure to the sun can also damage the DNA in your skin, leading to increased risk of skin cancer.  Tanning bulbs also prevent your body from repairing the damaged DNA, another factor that may increase cancer risks.

6.      Anyways, soaking up the sun is not the only way to increase Vitamin D intake.  Alternative sources include fish, cheese, and fortified foods like milk, as well as vitamin D supplements. Limited exposure to the sun is a good thing, but baking in tanning beds and burning in sunlight is not a good way to obtain Vitamin D.

7.      Not only does tanning hurt your health, but it can also hurt your wallet.  If you choose to tan in a tanning salon, by default you must pay for services. Add in expensive tanning lotions meant to enhance your tan. By the time you factor in the 10% tanning tax that starts July 1^st 2010, you’ve made a sizeable dent in your wallet.

The Situation with tanning does not look promising. “Fake-n-bake” tanning and sunbathing alike can be very harmful to your wallet, and most importantly, your health. If you’re not willing to cut down on your tanning habits, consider at least reducing your time under the heat lamps. If you prefer to brown outside, wear sunscreen to protect your skin. Follow Lindsay Lohan’s lead—this is probably the only time you’ll ever be told to listen to Lohan—and use sunless tanning products. Self-tanners and spray tans can give you that golden glow without harming your health.

In another one of my blogs, I outlined the reasons why you should quit tanning once and for all. I mainly focused on the health risks associated with tanning, including skin cancer and premature aging. One important new tax to know about is the tan tax, a tax on indoor tanning services that began on July 1 2010.

A tax on indoor tanning will help pay for healthcare reform

To fund the 2010 Affordable Care act, the federal government will now levy a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning, which started on July 1^st.  Spray tans and other sunless tanning products will not be taxed under the new legislation.  The tanning tax is expected to generate 2.7 billion dollars towards health care reform.  Dermatologists and other advocates hope that the tanning tax will dissuade people from baking their skin in indoor tanning beds.

Why tax tanning?

To begin with, countless dermatological studies have shown that tanning has a negative impact on the body. Exposure to UV rays damages the skin’s DNA, leaving people more than three times more likely to develop skin cancers like melanoma.  Although many skin cancers can be treatable, melanoma is the most deadly skin cancer—as well as the most common type of skin cancer found in young people. Indoor tanning beds can also contribute to premature aging of the skin, causing younger people to develop wrinkly or leathery looking skin. A young survivor of skin cancer who tanned in his youth even wants to ban tanning for minors because of health risks.

Initially, cosmetic surgery procedures were the victims of the tax—known as the “Botax” for the popular Botox procedure, until dermatologists successfully lobbied Congress to hit indoor tanning beds instead.

Still, tanning businesses fear that the new tax will put a damper on their fun in the sun. Before the 10% tax went into effect, many small businesses expressed their concern over the tax’s impact on business. Although tanning packages purchased at tanning salons will be exposed to the tax, health clubs that also feature tanning beds are exempt from the new legislation. One famous tanning salon patron, the Jersey Shore’s majestically orange Snooki, claimed that she would stop using tanning beds for good because of the tax, and use spray tan services instead. Other tanners said that the tax wouldn’t affect their tanning habits.

Other businesses claim that they have already noticed a drop off in sales. According to an article in the Washington Post, one tanning salon in Arlington, Virginia noticed a 20 to 30 percent drop off in business since the recession, and anticipated worse since the tanning tax went into effect July.  Then again, it is July, the height of beach season, when indoor fake n’ bake tanning really isn’t necessary, which could factor into that sales decline.

While time will tell how hard the tax will hit the tanning industry, I feel tanning salons should not be the only establishments subject to the tax.  By exempting fitness centers from taxation, the government is really squeezing the tanning industry. Still, the tax may serve as an additional incentive—including health—for people to stop tanning once and for all.

Medical residencies are notorious for their excruciatingly long shifts.  Doctors fresh out of medical schools use their residencies to gain on the job experience in their desired specialty. Although residencies allow these young doctors to develop expertise, the long work hours can take a toll on their minds and bodies. Residents practice under the supervision of licensed doctors and continue their training as physicians.

In the past, a medical resident could expect to work more than 100 hours a week, with minimal rest in between. Things changed in 2003, when the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (also known as ACGME), cut down the hours to 80 weekly, although this ruling was not strictly enforced. Still, many shifts can last over a day, up to 30 hours with limited time to sleep.

A new proposal set by ACGME will cut down on mistakes and ensure that patients are safe.   Maximum shift lengths would be reduced hopefully reduce harmful medical from 24 hours to 16 hours for first year residents and to 24 hours for all other physicians. Additionally, attending physicians would be required to make patients aware that they are under the charge of a resident.  The new guidelines will require attending physicians to supervise residents more closely in an effort to improve patient safety. Still, these regulations would only affect first year residents. All other physicians would limited to 24-hour shifts.

Studies have shown that sleep-deprived residents are more prone to making medical mistakes.  A Mayo Clinic study revealed that fatigued, distressed medical residents were more likely to make preventable medical mistakes. Yet another study found that residents were three times as likely to say that they’d made an error during months when they worked one 24 hour long shift.  In 2004, a report discovered that medical residents who worked all night shifts were ultimately accountable for over half of medical errors.

Overworked Medical Residents May Be Catching a Break

Ultimately, some medical mistakes prove fatal. One famous medical malpractice case is that of Libby Zion, an 18 year old college student who died when her overworked, fatigued medical residents prescribed her medication that reacted dangerously with her antidepressants.

Grueling shifts can compromise the health of the doctors themselves. Dr. Shannon Gulliver recently wrote a piece for the New York Times in which she detailed her own weakened immune system, a result of the long hours and high stress of her position. She developed esophagitis, while her colleagues themselves developed shingles, fungal infections, C. difficile diarrhea, and more.

While education is undoubtedly a priority during residency, maintaining the health of both doctors and patients is equally important.  As long as these regulations can cut down life threatening mistakes, I feel that cutting back these hours can be a good thing. Medical residents will still be able to gain the experience they need to practice, and after they complete their first year of residency, young doctors will only be restricted to 24 hour shifts. Ultimately, these guidelines will improve quality of care for patients and better health for doctors and patients alike.

Decided in 1973, the Roe v. Wade case forbade states from establishing laws that banned abortion.  It gave women the right to have an abortion in any US state up until their third trimester.  The ruling of this case has led to an ongoing abortion debate throughout the nation.  Anthony Kennedy, a Justice of the Supreme Court, is known for having a “swing vote” in many Supreme Court decisions.  However, people fear that a Republican President may choose to replace Kennedy.  Kennedy’s vote has always been important in the abortion cases.  If he were replaced, there is fear that Roe v. Wade may be overturned. This would allow states to enact laws against abortion at any point in the pregnancy if they so desire.

Supreme Court Nomination May Overturn on Roe v. Wade

If Roe v. Wade was overturned, the likelihood that we would see any variation in the amount of abortions in the US would be slim.  More problems may arise than would be solved in the event that Roe v. Wade was overturned.  If it was, there are about 20-25 states that would immediately enact laws against abortion.  This would make it more difficult for females to find a doctor offering abortion services.  However, it would not stop them from having abortions.  Females will either go to the states offering abortion services or find other means that are less safe and healthy than finding an available doctor.  Overturning Roe v. Wade would theoretically eliminate 170 doctors providing abortion services, which is less than 10% of all services available in the US.

Overturning Roe v. Wade will pose serious health and financial burdens.  As mentioned before, females will take more risky measures to have an abortion.  Those who decide to keep their baby are immediately faced with the high hospital costs and medical costs associated with having a baby.  Consequently, more women may consider taking contraceptives to prevent pregnancy in the first place.  However, this too can be expensive because many health insurance plans do not cover contraceptives.  If they do offer coverage, there is often a high out-of-pocket charge for the contraceptive prescription.  Also, there are very few health insurance companies that offer abortion coverage (most are private insurance companies).  It is likely that these health insurance companies will establish much higher costs in the states that would choose to allow abortion after overturning Roe v. Wade.

The replacement of Anthony Kennedy is not an immediate concern, but it is a possibility in the near future.  Kennedy’s retirement should not be in question because he is not likely to retire soon.  The only imminent threat to his position would be a Republican president, who may choose to replace Kennedy with a candidate who opposes abortion.  This decision, however, would have many repercussions and may not solve any abortion issues.

Thousands of families who took advantage of the federal government subsidy for extending their former employer’s health insurance coverage through COBRA have had to rethink their options in the past few weeks. On June 1, 2010 the federal government’s subsidy of COBRA health plan extensions expired. COBRA is a federal program which allows workers who have been laid off to continue the health insurance benefits their families received through their job after their employment has been terminated. With employer-sponsored coverage, companies contribute a given portion of the cost of their workers’ health insurance premiums and workers pay the rest. When a worker is laid off, COBRA gives that individual the option to remain on the same insurance plan as long as they agree to pay the total cost of monthly premiums themselves. Unfortunately, the full burden of such premiums is often too onerous for unemployed individuals to bear, especially in economic times such as these. That’s why as part of last year’s economic stimulus package, the federal government offered to subsidize the cost of extending one’s old coverage through COBRA at 65%. This subsidy was available beginning March 1, 2009 and offered 15 months of subsidized coverage to those who took advantage of the extension.

According to a study by the Treasury Department up to 1/3 of eligible unemployed workers signed up for the program. Last Tuesday, this benefit expired leaving thousands of families who took advantage of the opportunity to extend their health plan feeling they can no longer afford to continue this coverage without the help of the subsidy.  One exception to the June 1, 2010 expiration date remains for those who did not become unemployed until more recently. Those families who accepted the COBRA subsidized extension after March 1, 2009 but before December 31, 2009 are able to continue COBRA until September 30, 2010 when the subsidy expires completely. These families will be dropped off COBRA on a rolling basis based on when they signed up.

Though Congress has extended the COBRA subsidies four times since February 2009, the most recent proposed subsidy extension failed due to worries on the part of legislators about the federal budget deficit. Some states are offering additional COBRA extensions (called “mini-COBRA” laws) to supplement federal COBRA to extend benefits up to 36 months but again, the cost of these premiums tend to be much higher than those for plans available on the individual market.

Recently we have had many families losing their COBRA coverage visit our website to look into other, less expensive health insurance options offered on the individual and family health insurance market through us at Health Plan One. With individual and family plans, consumers are able to tailor their coverage so they only pay for the benefits which meet their specific needs. If you’re interested in doing your homework on the individual and family plans available to you, call one of our licensed agents at (877) 567-5267 for an expert, personalized consultation. Other public options for individuals with major preexisting conditions dropping their COBRA exist in most states, as do so-called “HIPAA-eligible” plans. Visit your state’s informational page at healthplanone.com to learn more about the publicly funded programs available in your area which benefit groups like pregnant women, children, and low-income families.

California has recently outlawed the sale of children’s sippy cups and baby bottles containing the chemical bisphenol A, or BPA which is often used to harden plastics. This move is in response to the many other bills which have gone through state legislatures in the past year. Minnesota, Connecticut and the city of Chicago outlawed the sale of baby food containers made with the chemical amidst concerns that it poses a health hazard for children and adults. 55 bills in 20 states aim to limit the use or sale of baby food jars and cans of formula containing BPA. Additionally, Canada banned baby bottles made with BPA because of uncertainty as to the potential effects of low levels of BPA exposure over an extended period of time. The chemical industry and baby food manufacturers have been caught off guard in the last two years by the overwhelming push to ban the use of the plastic ingredient. They’ve mounted a defense of over a dozen lobbyists from groups like the American Chemical Council, Enfamil, and Similac. The concern of these groups is that when California does something, it tends to spread across the nation. With the FDA agreeing to reconsider the safety of BPA this summer, chemical and baby food industry representatives worry a federal ban could be on the horizon. Lobbyists for these interests argue the amount of BPA in consumer goods is so miniscule it shouldn’t pose any health risk to children or adults, and that there’s no scientific basis for such an assessment. They say that the amount of the chemical found in most Americans is 1000 times below what European regulators have established are safe levels for BPA. Studies connecting BPA concentrations with medical problems in adults have indeed proven too inconclusive to act on, but compelling evidence does exist. For example, a study by the Harvard School of Public Health concluded BPA from clear polycarbonate water bottles (Nalgenes) leaches from the plastic into the water and into the human body. The reason that concerns about BPA are so elevated for baby bottles and baby food containers is because BPA leaches from these vessels into food and milk generating significant exposures to young children who cannot metabolize the harmful chemical as well as adults. These assessments were the result of studies initiated after a 2007 study by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences which found BPA caused reproductive abnormalities in mice. For this reason, the American Academy of Pediatrics has sounded the alarm: “The AAP is deeply concerned…that the current scientific evidence is largely insufficient to draw accurate conclusions about the safety of exposure to BPA, particularly with respect to vulnerable populations including pregnant women, infants, and children.”

At a press conference today, the World Health Organization announced the first full-blown flu pandemic in 41 years. WHO Director-General Margaret Chan declared the pandemic “globally as being moderate in severity” and a spokesman stated that the term pandemic refers to the “measure of the spread of the virus, not the severity of the virus.” Still however, the pandemic is not to be taken lightly. Chan noted: “This virus is entirely new and it is spreading easily. As of today, nearly 30,000 confirmed cases have been reported from 74 countries. With few exceptions, countries with large numbers of cases have good surveillance and procedures in place. Further spread is considered inevitable.” Surprisingly, the virus affect mostly younger people between the ages of 30 and 50. Chan stated: “This pattern is significantly different from other epidemics of seasonal flu, in which most deaths are in frail, elderly people. Most severe cases have been in people with underlying chronic conditions, such as asthma, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, auto-immune disorders and obesity.” The pandemic is generally not considered life threatening as Chan told the audience “he overwhelming majority of patients experience mild symptoms and make a rapid and full recovery. Worldwide, the number of deaths is small. Every death is tragic, and we have to brace for more.” In wealthy countries, especially, the pandemic is not considered very threatening at all to its citizens.
The issue of course lies in less wealthy countries, where health standards and regulations are not nearly as structured and extensive. Chan made it clear in the conference that all countries need to come together and help each other through this global issue. Chan noted: “Calling a pandemic is also a signal to the international community: This is a time where the world’s countries, rich or poor, big or small, must come together to make sure that no countries, because of poor resources, should be left behind without help.” Mexico has had many surprising and unpredictable outbreaks of the virus, but Chan told reporters that Mexico is coming to a “steady state.” They are only seeing “sporadic cases and small outbreaks. This virus is very unpredictable. This doesn’t mean Mexico should let down its guard. The virus can come back in a second wave.” While the disease is not a severe threat to wealthy countries like the United States, it is the duty of every country to do what it can to help prevent this disease from becoming a significant global problem.

“Reform is urgently needed,” Kennedy said, “and Tom Daschle is just the person for the job.”

With the inauguration of president-elect Barack Obama nearing, many are concerned about his new health care policy. Tom Daschle, Secretary of Health and Human Services, backs Obama’s call for a new public health insurance plan to compete with private insurers such as Blue Cross Blue Shield, Aetna, and WellPoint.

Tom Daschle was welcomed with open arms at his confirmation hearing on Thursday. Both parties expressed much admiration to Daschle and are willing to do whatever it takes with him to help our country out of the health care rut it is in.

So what does he want to do when he gets into office? He wants wider insurance coverage, higher quality care, lower costs, more preventive care, more money for community health centers, greater use of information technology, an emphasis on keeping people well, a stronger Food and Drug Administration, and speedier approval of low-cost generic drugs according to the confirmation meeting yesterday.

Other issues he would like to address while in office are reducing the influence of politics at federal science agencies. He would also like to increase Medicare payments to family doctors and other primary care physicians and place more emphasis on the prevention of disease, rather than the treatment of it.

The United States have more of a chance of insuring everyone since Democrats have total control of the government. Because of the recession, the number of uninsured has grown which means that the total cost of insuring everyone will grow as well. Tom Daschle has been a huge part of the U.S. government for over 30 years. He knows what needs to be done and now as Secretary of Health and Human services, it is more likely to get done.