Another step in Michelle Obama’s campaign to fight childhood obesity is to urge the nation’s largest food companies to make their food products healthier by reducing fat, salt and sugar in their products. She is also requesting that these same companies reconsider directing their marketing of unhealthy foods to children.

At a meeting of the Grocery Manufacturers Association last week, Michelle Obama told the food industry “to not just tweak around the edges but entirely rethink the products you are offering, the information that you provide about these products, and how you market those products to our children,” she said.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association, which counts Kraft Foods Inc., Coca Cola Co. and General Mills Inc. among its members, invited her to speak at its science forum this week.  Attendees gave her a standing ovation.

Welcoming the first lady and helping implement her campaign against childhood obesity could have its advantages. The food industry is in a situation where their profits are expected to decrease in the coming year, due to a child nutrition bill that is moving through Congress that could potentially remove all junk food in schools.

Former President Bill Clinton, who in 2005 partnered with the American Heart Association for a similar campaign against childhood obesity, said he was thrilled that Michelle Obama had joined the cause. “She’ll get visibility for it that I can’t get. She’s a lot younger than I am. She’ll relate better to a lot of the kids in the schools. They’ll relate better to her. I think it’s a really great thing for her to do this.”

Last week, Clinton announced that he has been able to reduce beverage calories shipped to schools by 88%.   His effort was aimed at replacing full calorie soft drinks with reduced calorie, smaller portion beverages in school cafeterias and vending machines.

Since the science forum last week, Kraft Foods Inc. has announced that they are going to make positive changes and reduce fat, salt and sugar in their products.  Michelle Obama expects that other companies will announce changes to their products in the coming weeks.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_michelle_obama_food_companies

Coca Cola and Pepsi Co joined former president Bill Clinton in announcing the results of an initiative they said had reduced the number of soft drink calories in American schools by 88%.

The announcement comes after Michelle Obama increased pressure on the companies by targeting them as one of the many causes of obesity in children.

One in five US children aged six to 19 are estimated to be obese, a condition that frequently leads to related health problems such as heart disease and diabetes.  Conditions that can follow obese children through adulthood.

Since soft drink companies are the biggest targets to preventing obesity in our children, their proactive approach by partnering with Bill Clinton may protect their future earnings as they are expecting a slide in profits as people continue to lead healthier lifestyles.

“It’s a brand new day in America’s schools when it comes to beverages,” said Susan Neely, the head of the American Beverage Association. “Our beverage companies have slashed calories in schools as full calorie soft drinks have been removed. The beverages available to students are now lower-calorie and are served in smaller portions.”

Under the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, a joint initiative of the American Heart Association and the Clinton Foundation, full calorie drinks were removed from shipments to school cafeterias and vending machines.  Low-fat milk, diet soft drinks, flavored waters and teas replaced the sugary drinks.

Coca Cola and Pepsi Co also spent millions of dollars in retrofitting vending machines and repackaging products.

“School is a unique environment where students make food and beverage choices with limited supervision,” said Clyde Yancy, president of the American Heart Association.

In addition to the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, there is an increasing urgency to impose a “fat tax” on soft drinks.  New York is in the forefront of the campaign, which the American Beverage Association vigorously opposes.

New York State Health Commissioner Richard Daines considers the “fat tax” as an opportunity to help our children. “The dramatic under pricing of sugar sweetened beverages, their widespread availability, and the ceaseless marketing of these products constitute a stumbling block to good health and are a clear and present danger to the future of our children,” Daines said.

SOURCE: http://health.yahoo.com/news/afp/ushealthobesitychildrendrinkschooltax_20100308220858.html

Adding urgency to Michelle Obama’s initiative to tackle childhood obesity is the release of two new studies published in the medical journal Health Affairs.  The studies indicate that American children are eating three snacks each day on top of three regular meals, a finding that could explain why the childhood obesity rate has risen to more than 16 percent since 2003.

Carmen Piernas and Barry Popkin of the University of North Carolina reported that children are snacking so often that they are “moving toward constant eating,” a habit that is putting our children’s health at risk for obesity related diseases.

Piernas and Popkin looked at 31,337 children aged 2 to 18 from four different federal surveys on food and eating.  ”Childhood snacking trends are moving toward three snacks per day, and more than 27 percent of children’s daily calories are coming from snacks. The largest increases have been in salty snacks and candy. Desserts and sweetened beverages remain the major sources of calories from snacks,” they wrote.

“Children have increased their caloric intake by 113 calories per day from 1977 to 2006,” they added. “This raises the question of whether the physiological basis for eating is becoming deregulated, as our children are moving toward constant eating.”

In a second study in the journal, Christina Bethell of the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland analyzed data from the 2007 National Survey of Children’s Health to find the rate of obesity for children 10 to 17 rose from 14.8 percent in 2003 to 16.4 percent in 2007.

Other studies have shown that obese children are more likely to stay obese as adults, and they develop chronic conditions at younger ages, burdening the healthcare system.

Michelle Obama told the School Nutrition Association that “Parents, educators and policymakers all hold responsibility for this childhood obesity epidemic.  Our kids didn’t do this to themselves.  From fast food, to vending machines packed with chips and candy, to a la carte lines, we tempt our kids with all kinds of unhealthy choices every day.  You see kids who are at higher risk of conditions like diabetes, and cancer, and heart disease, conditions that cost billions of dollars a year to treat.”

SOURCE:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100302/hl_nm/us_obesity_children_usa

President Obama recently announced another overhaul to the health care proposal that incorporates previously rejected Republican ideas.  Does this mean that we could be one step closer to an approved health care reform?  Here are the GOP ideas, recently added to the proposal.

Fight fraud and abuse. Republicans have been pushing for background checks on billing agencies, insurance companies and individuals to help prevent fraud and abuse in the health care industry. Obama now proposes that random undercover investigations of health care providers take place on a regular basis.   It has been documented that fraud and abuse wastes billions of tax payer dollars each year.

Control malpractice lawsuits. Republicans wanted a push to end ‘junk lawsuits’.  Obama is now a supporter of this idea and will is appropriate $50 million to help states find alternate resolutions to costly medical malpractice disputes.  Part of the money would develop and manage a health court system.

Increase Medicaid.  Obama plans to increase Medicaid reimbursements to doctors, an idea originally supported by Republicans. Obama’s plan eliminates the controversial Nebraska proposal which exempts that state from paying increased Medicaid expenses. It also provides additional federal financing to all 50 states for the Medicaid expansion.

Close the donut hole.  Obama’s newest proposal closes the Medicare prescription drug ‘donut hole’.  Under current Medicare limits, seniors are covered until they reach the $2,830 limit.  At that time, they must pay all additional costs out of pocket until they reach $4,550, at which point Medicare coverage kicks back in.  Obama’s proposal provides a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who reach the $2,830 limit in 2010. The plan slowly closes the donut hole over the next 10 years.

Health care exchange plans.  Republicans were concerned about ensuring that Health Savings Accounts are included in the health care exchange program.  Obama is now considering including language that guarantees that high deductible health plans are offered in the health exchange. “The GOP plan creates new incentives to save for current and future health care needs by allowing qualified participants to use HSA funds to pay premiums for high deductible health insurance,” according to official GOP website, gop.gov.

SOURCE:  http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/03/health.care.gop.ideas/index.html

SOURCE: http://www.gop.gov/

After 7 1/2 hours of debate and disagreement, President Obama concluded that an agreement between Democrats and Republicans may not be possible.

“We cannot have another year long debate about this,”  Obama said at the end of the full day marathon policy session.

Neither party gave any ground, sticking to arguing useless points and making egotistical comments.  The conversation veered between irrelevant details and bad tempers.  Disagreements were not expressed diplomatically, cheap shots and negative remarks continued throughout the day, and irritation was clearly visible on the faces of both parties.

Polls are showing that Americans want solutions to the biggest problems of high medical costs, decreasing access to coverage and inconsistent quality. However, many Americans are split over the Democrats’ sweeping legislation, with its 1 trillion dollar price tag pver 10 years and many complex provisions, including some changes that wouldn’t even take effect for eight years.

Obama and his Democratic party clashed with congressional Republicans over the right prescription for the nation’s broken health care system.  Republicans oppose this dramatically sweeping health care plan and favor small changes over a period of years.

The Democratic bills would require most Americans to get health insurance, while providing subsidies for others in the form of a tax credit. They would set up a competitive insurance market for small businesses and people buying coverage on their own. Democrats also would make numerous other changes, which include addressing a coverage gap in the Medicare prescription benefit and setting up a new long term care insurance program. Their plan would be paid for through a mix of Medicare cuts and tax increases.

“Not only are lawmakers polarized, the parties’ constituencies are far apart,” said Robert Blendon, a Harvard University professor who follows public opinion trends on health care. “The president is going to use it as a launching pad for what will be the last effort to get a big bill passed. He will say that he tried to get a bipartisan compromise and it wasn’t possible.”

SOURCE: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

Earlier this week, President Obama released a modified health care plan – three days before a bipartisan summit on health care.

The modified plan, in general, contains the same fundamentals included in the House and Senate bills that have already passed, but with adjustments and provisions.  President Obama is hoping that by laying out a health care plan that largely resembles the House and Senate bills that everyone could reach a compromise. By releasing his new plan earlier this week, days before the health care summit, the White House is trying to frame the debate until then.

Some highlights from the new White House health care plan:

New federal insurance regulation The plan includes a new federal health insurance regulatory board that will review rate increases and block those it deems unjustified.  State insurance commissioners have the power to do this in most places, but a new federal authority could strengthen rate regulation.

Medicaid help for states The plan would eliminate the notorious and despised Cornhusker Kickback, a special Medicaid deal awarded to Nebraska under the original Senate bill. Instead, the Obama Administration’s health care plan would increase Medicaid funding for all states. The plan would also give extra funding to states that have already expanded their Medicaid programs, even without federal prompting. This could do a lot to appease governors who have been loudly protesting the Medicaid expansion called for under Democratic reform, saying the state-federal program will eventually break their budgets.

Weakens the cadillac tax The plan delays the implementation of the excise tax on “Cadillac” health plans until 2018 and raises the threshold for which plans would get taxed. Beginning in 2018, individual plans with premiums above $10,200 and families plans above $27,500 would be subject to the tax. There are adjustments made for companies where costs are higher because of age and gender of workers and there is an adjustment made for workers in high-risk occupations.

Closes the doughnut hole The plan would close the Medicare drug benefit “doughnut hole” completely by 2020. This would be paid for by an additional $10 billion in fees from drug companies.

Increases affordability The plan increases subsidies for middle income Americans buying their own health insurance on the open market beyond what the Senate bill called for.

Imposes higher fees on individuals and employers who go without insurance The plan would strengthen the individual mandate by adopting the House’s higher penalties for those who opt not to buy insurance. There are still hardship exemptions and exemptions for those with income below the tax filing threshold. The fee on employers who don’t offer coverage would be $2,000 per worker, with firms with 50 or fewer employees exempted from this requirement. There is also a $40 billion infusion of tax credits available to small businesses to help them offer coverage beginning in 2010.

National exchange, no public option and Senate abortion language The Obama plan does not mention any of these sticking points, meaning it favors the Senate exchange design (state based exchanges rather than the House’s national exchange), the Senate’s abortion language (not the House’s Stupak language) and the Senate’s lack of a public option.

The Obama plan would cost $950 billion over ten years and provide new insurance coverage for 31 million Americans.

SOURCE: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/02/22/details-of-obamas-health-care-plan/#respond

You may have already noticed.  There is a new awareness about obesity buzzing around us.  It’s on the news.  It’s in the newspaper.  And thankfully soon it will be in the doctor’s offices and schools.

Last Tuesday Michelle Obama announced her campaign to fight childhood obesity.  It’s a much needed campaign as the scary facts state that as a nation, we are getting fatter each year.  We should already know the side effects of being overweight, including an increased risk of heart disease and diabetes, which is significantly higher in those who are obese.  In addition, there are hundreds of other health problems that can affect our overweight population.

Until now, no one has discussed how much money is being spent on obesity.

At an event to kick off the fight against childhood obesity, the Michelle Obama said, “Economic experts tell us that we are spending outrageous amounts of money treating obesity-related conditions like diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.”

A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, along with a not for profit research group called RTI International, found that the direct and indirect cost of obesity “is as high as $147 billion annually.”

The study collected data in 2006, and found that obese patients spent an average $1,429 more for their medical care than did people within a normal weight range.  It works out to be a 42 percent higher health care cost for people who are obese.

The CDC study found that Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers increased spending due to obesity from 6.5 percent in 1998 to 9.1 percent in 2006. The figure includes prescription drug costs.

Health Affairs, a medical journal, found that the costs of hospitalizations related to childhood obesity rose from $125.9 million in 2001 to $237.6 million in 2005.

Bottom Line:  Lose weight and every American wins.  America spends as much as $147 billion annually on the direct and indirect costs of obesity, and if every single person took responsibility for their own weight management we could potentially save billions of dollars each year.  

SOURCE:  http://www.wwlp.com/dpp/health/healthy_living/fact-check:-the-cost-of-obesity

SOURCE:  http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/09/fact.check.obesity/index.html

In the state of the union address a few weeks ago, President Barack Obama announced that his wife, Michelle, has been laying the groundwork for over a year, developing a plan to fight childhood obesity.   To achieve this goal, Michelle Obama has requested the help of parents, schools, health professionals, sports and entertainment role models, business leaders and governments.

Childhood obesity is a growing epidemic that causes numerous health problems that can affect children now and as they grow into adults.  Currently 1 out of every 3 children is considered overweight.

There are several factors contributing to this epidemic including the following:

Busy parents opt for fast food rather than healthy family dinners at home.

Vending machines stocked with soda and candy bars.

Availability of high fat, high calorie snacks marketed towards children.

High cost of healthy options (there may be a link between obesity and low income).

Children rather watch TV or play games than play outside and exercise.

Clyde Yancy, president of the American Heart Association, said Obama’s focus will help generate the motivation needed to change attitudes.  Michelle Obama, known as a mother, motivator and role model is the perfect fit to get this job done.  Yancy admits Michelle has a tough job ahead of her, but he thinks that her goals can be achieved only with the help of several of organizations that can make substantive changes such as reducing fatty snacks and sodas in schools, providing better nutrition labeling of processed foods.

Michelle Obama’s plan to end childhood obesity includes the following:

Increase federal money to make cafeteria options healthier

Get the junk food out of school vending machines.

Expand time for school recess and physical education.

Offer federal incentives to low income families so that they can purchase healthier foods.

Stop companies from marketing junk food to children.

Pass laws to make restaurants to print nutrition information on menus.

Encourage health practitioners to do more medical screening for obesity in children.

Work with FDA to improve food labeling.

Provide behavior counseling to overweight kids.

Included in this list is the ‘School Lunch Program’ which is up for review by Congress this year.  Parents can control their child’s diet most of the time, but a huge weakness in her fight against obesity is the options available to kids when their parents aren’t around – at school.  To help with the School Lunch Program, President Barack Obama’s proposed budget calls for an additional 1 billion dollars each year for child nutrition programs.

Dora Rivas, president of the School Nutrition Association and director of food services for the Dallas public schools, said schools need more federal dollars to be able to use fresh fruits, vegetables and whole grains into lunches, and to keep up with the growing numbers of children who qualify for free or reduced-cost meals.

Michelle Obama has a tough road ahead of her, but she said last month that she won’t be satisfied unless she knows she’s made a difference. “That is the legacy I want,” she said. “I want to leave something behind that we can say, because of this time that this person spent here, this thing has changed.”

SOURCE:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_first_lady_s_cause

SOURCE:  http://www.schoolnutrition.org/Blog.aspx?id=13585&blogid=564

President Obama recently declared the swine flu virus a national emergency, but what exactly does that mean? 

The national emergency declaration,  by definition, means certain government functions are invoked and suspended during the state of national emergency, allowing for expedited care for those in need during the emergency.

This past June the World Health Organization upgraded H1N1 from phase five to a phase six pandemic, which is the highest level of pandemic. The public may be familiar with these declarations in regard to terrorism, but the H1N1 virus is the most recent pandemic resulting from a health risk to the public, unrelated to terrorism.

Obama’s declaration of a national emergency means hospitals are given the freedom to set up care sites outside of hospitals, such as in schools, parking lots and other available areas without the federal ‘red tape’.  If the hospital creates a health care site within 250 yards of the hospital, they qualify for federal reimbursement for the treatment of patients. The intent of setting up off site care locations is not only to slow the spread of the virus, but also to prevent overcrowding in the emergency room, which could free up space for other illnesses.

The declaration also allows hospitals to modify patient check-in procedures, minimizing paperwork which allows faster treatment to treat each illness.

An additional benefit is that changes and waivers to coverage may be made involving Medicare and Medicaid throughout the duration of the state of emergency. These changes and waivers may provide treatment to those who do not qualify under their current insurance.

The overall intent of the declaration is to give hospitals the freedom to fight the swine flu without federal paperwork, which ultimately slows the health care process.  This is particularly important when hospitals are dealing with a virus that is spread rapidly.

SOURCE  http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thehumancondition/archive/2009/10/27/swine-flu-emergency-what-obama-s-declaration-means.aspx