American Healthcare continues to go backward
- Thread starter steross
- Start date
All prescription medications are "dangerous substances". The only thing that has changed in Louisiana is the "controlled" status. Misoprostol was a "dangerous substance" before it became a "controlled dangerous substance" in Louisiana. From the Oklahoma Pharmacy Practice Act:A lifesaving drug used to stop postpartum hemorrhaging will be pulled off emergency response carts once it becomes a ‘controlled dangerous substance.’ Louisiana
Doctors grapple with how to save women's lives amid 'confusion and angst' over new Louisiana law • Louisiana Illuminator
Under a new state law, Louisiana doctors might not be able to quickly access one of the most widely used life-saving medications for pregnant women.lailluminator.com
10. "Dangerous drug", "legend drug", "prescription drug" or "Rx Only" means a drug:
a. for human use subject to 21 U.S.C. 353(b)(1), or
b. is labeled "Prescription Only", or labeled with the following statement: "Caution: Federal law restricts this drug except for use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian".
It was done for political means. It does not meet the criteria of the controlled substances act below. As stated in the article, storage of the medication has to change, making it less accessible in emergency situations. This listing causes harm, not benefit.
In making any finding under subsection (a) of this section or under subsection (b) of section 812 of this title, the Attorney General shall consider the following factors with respect to each drug or other substance proposed to be controlled or removed from the schedules:
(1) Its actual or relative potential for abuse.
(2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known.
(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance.
(4) Its history and current pattern of abuse.
(5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse.
(6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health.
(7) Its psychic or physiological dependence liability.
(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this subchapter.
I wasn't making a political statement, merely a statement of fact. A second statement of fact: It doesn't in any way, shape, or form fit the definition of a controlled substance. Misoprostol does not produce dependence and has no potential for abuse.
mugatu
Ranger
I read an article earlier today about how the Republican fundraing for state and local offices was WAY behind the Dem counterpart. This crap is probably why. They keep doing things that help no one and cause many people harm... all just to push against abortion or other made up cultural fights.
Republicans have been getting their asses kicked down ballot since 2018 on for two reasons: Trump and abortion. Trump has been a drag down ballot. The "red wave" that was supposed to happen in the last election, didn't, and people who he specifically supported lost. He has a rabid base, but is deeply unpopular with the rest of the country, and Republicans can't seem to hear the message. And until Republicans find a coherent and sane position on abortion they are going to continue to lose at the ballot box because of that issue too. It hasn't turned out in state elections anything like what they thought it would. And things like this, making misoprostol a controlled substance, is just stupid.
My daughter had a miscarriage. She took misoprostol after the miscarriage. With it being a controlled substance in Michigan it would mean that they would have had to check the state database to see if she were on any other controlled substances before prescribing it for her. This despite the fact that it has zero abuse potential, zero potential to produce dependence, and zero street value. It's flat stupid.
Stillwater Townie
Ranger
Well, put. Sorry about your daughter.
I hope Trump and also Walters works as a drag down the ballots in Oklahoma. The woman who is running for state senator for the Stillwater area comes from education and says the no. 1 issue in the state to her is education. One of the biggest complaints she hears from campaigning door to door is over the extremism of Walters. She came to my door last summer, and I told her the same.
To her Republican opponent, a doctor, it's health care. But the main impression I got from hearing him talk on health care reform is that malpractice insurance is too high and there are too many medical regulations. He gave $1000 to Ryan Walters, which was disgusting to know. I wouldn't trust him to help impeach Walters.
Speaking of abortion, the most pro-life person there ever will be in the world is the woman joyfully pregnant. Republicans should focus on how to cut down on maternal and infant mortality rates, which are shamefully high in the western world.
If Republicans can ever find the next Reagan, it might help them. Too bad how Trump said he learned a lot from Nixon, rather than from Reagan.
You can't compare US infant mortality rates with the rest of the world because we don't count them the same, it is an apples
ranges comparison.
You can't compare US infant mortality rates with the rest of the world because we don't count them the same, it is an apples
How do we count vs other countries?
From:
Why Is Infant Mortality Higher in the United States Than in Europe?
Am Econ J Econ Policy. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 May 4.
Published in final edited form as: Am Econ J Econ Policy. 2016 May;8(2):89–124. doi: 10.1257/pol.20140224
First, a well-recognized problem is that countries vary in their reporting of births near the threshold of viability. Such reporting differences may generate misleading comparisons of how infant mortality varies across countries.
It's complicated, but the United States counts infant death during the pregnancy and not every country does so. Some countries only report infant death at birth. My daughter had a miscarriage. It counts in the infant death statistics the same as if she gave live birth and the baby died three days later, but another country may only count the latter as infant death. It's pretty easy to see how that would be an apples and oranges comparison.If we control for that and only look at infant mortality in the first year after live birth, it still looks bad compared to other first world countries, but not as bad compared to the rest of the world. There is a huge socio-economic component, prenatal care for the lowest socio-economic class is bad. Prenatal behavior for the lowest socio-economic class is bad. When I was a resident on infectious disease we got a consult for a mother who had just given birth. She was an addict and was septic. The baby was taken to Children's. The medicine resident I was with was from Brazil. While we were working her up he told me, "In Brazil, when we had her on the table we would have tied her tubes. She would not have had another one. But we can't do that here." She has a right to have another baby even though the chances of mortality for the one she just had was high. We could lower our infant mortality rate by simply tying her tubes. Buck v Bell has never been overturned, btw.
mugatu
Ranger
Just came across this and thought there's no way... but its America so it's true.
Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield Won’t Pay for the Complete Duration of Anesthesia for Patients’ Surgical Procedures
In an unprecedented move, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield plans representing Connecticut, New York and Missouri have unilaterally declared it will no longer pay for anesthesia care if the surgery or procedure goes beyond an arbitrary time limit, regardless of how long the surgical procedure takes...
www.asahq.org
That is absolutely diabolicalView attachment 8685
Just came across this and thought there's no way... but its America so it's true.
Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield Won’t Pay for the Complete Duration of Anesthesia for Patients’ Surgical Procedures
In an unprecedented move, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield plans representing Connecticut, New York and Missouri have unilaterally declared it will no longer pay for anesthesia care if the surgery or procedure goes beyond an arbitrary time limit, regardless of how long the surgical procedure takes...
View attachment 8685
Just came across this and thought there's no way... but its America so it's true.
Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield Won’t Pay for the Complete Duration of Anesthesia for Patients’ Surgical Procedures
In an unprecedented move, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield plans representing Connecticut, New York and Missouri have unilaterally declared it will no longer pay for anesthesia care if the surgery or procedure goes beyond an arbitrary time limit, regardless of how long the surgical procedure takes...
After today, they might want to rethink that one.
This post struck a nerve.
www.threads.net
Matt Lewis (@thefunmattlewis) on Threads
Heartbreaking to hear that only one big Insurance CEO was murdered today.
www.threads.net
This post struck a nerve.
View attachment 8692
Matt Lewis (@thefunmattlewis) on Threads
Heartbreaking to hear that only one big Insurance CEO was murdered today.
The complete lack of 'give a crap' from every corner of the internet is pretty interesting to see.
All life has value. But it's hard to find value in someone who is responsible for a bunch of death because of actions that helped his companies stock price.
mugatu
Ranger
It is interesting to see, but I think it shpuld have been expected. People HATE insurance companies.
Tons of companies put profits over human life, but I guess when your job is to protect human life and you put profits over life it hits a bit different?
