http://debralegg.com 9to5to9: A working mom's mad adventures in boy land Sun, 25 Jul 2010 16:00:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 en hourly 1 http://debralegg.com/2010/04/27/no-the-government-cant-limit-your-salt-but-you-should/ http://debralegg.com/2010/04/27/no-the-government-cant-limit-your-salt-but-you-should/#comments Wed, 28 Apr 2010 04:52:22 +0000 Debra Legg http://debralegg.com/?p=8827 Calm down, folks. Uncle Sam isn't going to bang in your door and confiscate your salt shaker. Though it's really not a bad idea.

According to a very poorly phrased Rasmussen poll, 55 percent of the Americans who responded don't think the government should set limits on how much salt Americans can eat. As if the government could do that anyway, short of putting spy cams in every home or having airport-like searches at every grocery store.  But then, the Rasmussen poll has been known to skew right, and fear of the government "nanny state" is a popular theme with those on the far right of right so its easy to see why paranoia overtook critical thinking.

Not that rationing is a bad idea on its face - the right to bear salt isn't in the Second Amendment, is it? Though 71 percent of those in the Rasmussen poll say they already closely monitor to what they eat, an American's average daily salt consumption has been in excess of 3,400 milligrams for decades, with 75 percent of it coming from processed foods. The Food and Drug Administration's recommended level is 2,400. Are people closely monitoring but just not caring?

The difference in sodium consumption makes a big difference in terms of dollars and health. A study released last month estimated that cutting salt intake 9.5 percent would mean 513,885 fewer strokes and 480,358 fewer heart attack over the lifetimes of adults ages 40 to 85 today. It would save $32.1 billion in health care costs.

The same study suggests that manufacturers work with the government to reduce sodium levels voluntarily, and it points to a highly successful effort in England that accomplished that 9.5 percent reduction through that method alone. New York City already is trying for voluntary reductions stateside, and some manufacturers are on board.

The study also raises the specter of a tax on high-sodium foods, which probably would give the Rasmussen respondents the heebie jeebies. Stockpile the Mortons. They're coming to take it away!

That's not likely, since salt Americans add to their own food accounts for only about 11 percent of consumption. An additional 9 percent occurs naturally in foods. The rest is through processing.

Yes, the government can regulate processing and has done so in the past. But that's a far cry from Big Brother slapping on the cuffs if you utter the words, "pass the salt."

Copyright 2010 Debra Legg. All rights reserved.

Similar Posts:

• Cell phones, kids and the cancer scare — is it real?
• If you want the BPA problem solved, you’ll have to do it yourself
• FDA still asleep on BPA issue
• Here’s hoping the new FDA head has bigger worries than cold medicine
• It’s official: No one knows where food comes from

]]> http://debralegg.com/2010/04/27/no-the-government-cant-limit-your-salt-but-you-should/feed/ 0 http://debralegg.com/2010/04/13/school-lunch-do-gooding-takes-a-goofy-turn/ http://debralegg.com/2010/04/13/school-lunch-do-gooding-takes-a-goofy-turn/#comments Wed, 14 Apr 2010 02:06:37 +0000 Debra Legg http://debralegg.com/?p=8737 Foods made with white sugar, fructose, corn syrup, or any thing ending in "-ose" are banned - presumably, this doesn't apply to lactose - but peanut butter laced with honey is OK.

Crackers aren't allowed, but plain corn or potato chips are fine. Fresh fruit, go for it. Canned fruit will be confiscated.

Those are just a few of the lunch rules at Children's Success Academy, a charter school  in Tucson, Ariz.

They have enforcers, too. Teachers confiscate forbidden foods, such as a burrito in a white flour tortilla on one recent day. It's all in keeping with school director and founder Nanci Aiken's beliefs that children who eat properly will grow and develop properly.

I have no quibble with that part. School lunches, by and large, are pretty miserable menus across the country. Breakfast too often is something dipped in syrup, while lunch frequently is nachos or pizza.

Where I do take issue with Aiken's philosophy is here: "Foods to be avoided entirely include refined sugars, sugar substitutes and other highly processed items including fats, such as margarines, which contain partially hydrogenated oils."

You see, I don't believe in "avoid entirely." I do believe, and I preach it daily, in teaching kids the difference between real food and garbage. But there's nothing that we "avoid entirely," except maybe Brussels sprouts and that's because no one here can stand them. Want a cookie? Sure, if you've eaten  your good food and aren't just filling your belly with junk.

She's also deluding herself if she thinks that foods on her "safe" list are actually safe by her standards. Just browse the ingredient labels on whole-grain bread the next time you're at the store - many are made with high-fructose corn syrup. And speaking of whole grains, don't confuse that with the brown bread labeled whole wheat. Much of the time, that's just regular white bread colored with molasses. There are, however, white whole grain breads. How do the teachers at Aiken's school know which to toss?

Then you have the hypocrisy of preaching against fat while allowing potato and corn chips. The low-fat roast beef lunch meat Big Guy takes most days - on a whole-grain roll! - has less fat than potato chips. The latter isn't a high-fiber offering that I'm aware of.

And while we're on the subject of lunch meat, that's banned but fish sticks are allowed? Fish sticks usually have more protein, but many varieties also have way more sodium and fat.

So I'll continue to send Big Guy to school with his lunch meat, the occasional serving of canned fruit and even - gasp! - a Hershey Kiss every day. In the long run, I bet his diet is just as healthful as those of kids who lose their burritos to the lunch police.

Copyright 2010 Debra Legg. All rights reserved.

Similar Posts:

• Confessions of a closet snacker
• For those who needed proof, study links obesity and soda
• Good luck to New York in its assault on salt
• Finally, a nutrition campaign that takes a practical path
• More research, more bad results for high-fructose corn syrup

]]> http://debralegg.com/2010/04/13/school-lunch-do-gooding-takes-a-goofy-turn/feed/ 0 http://debralegg.com/2010/03/24/more-research-more-bad-results-for-high-fructose-corn-syrup/ http://debralegg.com/2010/03/24/more-research-more-bad-results-for-high-fructose-corn-syrup/#comments Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:56:55 +0000 Debra Legg http://debralegg.com/?p=8584 Here's another one from the files marked "eat real food, please":

Two separate studies at Princeton University found that lab animals fed high fructose corn syrup - presumably the mercury-free variety - gained more weight than those that consumed the same amount of table sugar.

"These rats aren't just getting fat; they're demonstrating characteristics of obesity, including substantial increases in abdominal fat and circulating triglycerides," Princeton graduate student Miriam Bocarsly said in a story on the university's Web site. "In humans, these same characteristics are known risk factors for high blood pressure, coronary artery disease, cancer and diabetes."

Americans on average consume 60 pounds of high fructose corn syrup a year.  "Our findings lend support to the theory that the excessive consumption of high-fructose corn syrup found in many beverages may be an important factor in the obesity epidemic," research associate Nicole Avena said.

Yes, they're studying rats, not humans. Yes, the rats were wrong about saccharine. Yes, there are competing studies showing that high fructose corn syrup is hunky-doory. Let's not forget, though, that many of those studies were financed by the high-fructose dependent soft drink industry.

That's the same industry that's quietly backing away from high-fructose corn syrup. Other brands, from ketchup to crackers, are slinking off, too. They just can't figure out how to trumpet that without marginalizing their other lines.

Meanwhile, billions of taxpayer dollars continue to subsidize corn production and not all of that's being turned into ethanol. And just watch the corn-producing states go nuts if someone dares to redirect part of that money to fruits and vegetables - things that might actually be healthy.

No, the case isn't closed yet on high-fructose corn syrup. By this time tomorrow, someone from the corn industry will again be pointing out that it's a "natural" substance. As natural, at least, as anything is that uses caustic soda in the production process.

But why not err on the side of caution, just the lab rats are right this time.

Eat real food.

Copyright 2010 Debra Legg. All rights reserved.

Similar Posts:

• School lunch do-gooding takes a goofy turn
• For those who needed proof, study links obesity and soda
• New proof of what we know: Moms don’t take care of themselves
• The obesity epidemic might start earlier than we think
• It might take a village to diet, too

]]> http://debralegg.com/2010/03/24/more-research-more-bad-results-for-high-fructose-corn-syrup/feed/ 0 http://debralegg.com/2010/03/03/confessions-of-a-closet-snacker/ http://debralegg.com/2010/03/03/confessions-of-a-closet-snacker/#comments Thu, 04 Mar 2010 02:45:33 +0000 Debra Legg http://debralegg.com/?p=8385 Back when my job involved actually leaving my house, there wasn't a lunchbox in the world big enough for me.

I usually ran out the door without breakfast, triggering the need to pack snack one. The midafternoon post-lunch letdown led directly to snack two. If the day was long or stressful and I hadn't packed snack three, I'd hit the vending machine before I hit the road.

It all would have amounted to atrocious eating habits if I hadn't packed healthful food - cheese, fruits, whole grains.

And that's where I often screw it up for Big Guy. I know he's going to be ravenous when he gets home from school, even if he does eat all his lunch. On days when the world isn't blowing up, I'm ready for him. On the days when chaos reigns, well, have some CheezIts, kid.

It's a habit that's become ingrained in the American culture, according to research published this week in Health Affairs. Young kids are eating more snacks than teens these days - enough to account for more than a quarter of their daily calories.

And the amount of calories consumed also has increased 168 calories a day during the 30 years the research covers.

“My underlying fear is that we’re moving away from being hungry and eating for satiation to just eating,” said Dr. Barry M. Popkin,  co-author of the study and director of nutrition epidemiology at the University of North Carolina. “Food is there, and we eat.”

For us, though, making sure "food is there" actually works better. If there's a bowl of strawberries or apples on the counter when Big Guy hits the door, that's what goes in his mouth. Lacking that visual suggestion, though, he'll usually ask for crackers. This week, we have a stash of juice bags left over from soccer snacks, so he's been all over that, too.

Left unchecked, it would lead to the same trend that Popkin saw nationally: Kids filling up on sweet or salty snacks, as well as juice. The latter has led to many discussion with Boots, who tries to insist that if it's 100 percent juice it's just as good as fruit. No, it's not. It's better than the high-fructose-laden swill that passes for a "fruit drink," but it's hardly a health food.

Given my history as a grazer rather than an eater, it's all too easy for me to fall into the snack-your-way-through-the-day trap. I do need to purge the CheezIts, though, and prominently display the real cheese.

Copyright 2010 Debra Legg. All rights reserved.

Similar Posts:

• Looking for unhealthy teens? Follow the fast-food chain
• A marketing ploy that’s partly true: Eat our pizza, but less of it
• For those who needed proof, study links obesity and soda
• Even if children don’t listen, that doesn’t mean we quit talking
• Mom’s having a crappy day, kids. Here, have some Oreos

]]> http://debralegg.com/2010/03/03/confessions-of-a-closet-snacker/feed/ 2 http://debralegg.com/2010/03/01/the-first-step-to-solving-a-problem-is-knowing-you-have-it/ http://debralegg.com/2010/03/01/the-first-step-to-solving-a-problem-is-knowing-you-have-it/#comments Tue, 02 Mar 2010 03:15:21 +0000 Debra Legg http://debralegg.com/?p=8367 Here's a tricky one to tackle:

According to an article in March's edition of Pediatrics, nearly 30 percent of overweight teens don't know that they're overweight. And if they don't know they're overweight, they're less likely to try to take steps toward becoming more healthy: Better food choices and more exercise, for example.

How the heck do we convince overweight teens to trim down when they don't even know they're at risk? Particularly in light of earlier research that show the doctors and parents also are lousy at judging a child's weight?

The researchers' answer: Clinicians should "consider their patients' perceived weight status" when counseling teen patients.

Gee, that doesn't make the conversation a whole lot easier. Not when you're already dealing with the emotional roller-coaster that is adolescence.

It's hard to imagine that so many teens today are unaware that they're overweight. A generation ago, it was difficult to avoid that harsh truth, because if consistently coming in last in PE class didn't tip you off there was always a classmate willing to taunt "fatty, fatty 2x4" and help you face reality.

While there's no need to return to the day when merciless teasing was considered par for the course of childhood, a few more PE classes wouldn't hurt. Unfortunately, those have given way in many districts to schools' budget realities.

So where does that leave us? Square on the doctors' doorsteps again. It's getting to be a long, winding staircase. The guys' pediatrician once joked that soon she'd need a poster board to check off everything she needs to during a checkup: Reading, juice abuse, excessive screen time ...

Somehow, doctors must find the time - and the courage - to pull parents aside and say exactly what the Obama family pediatrician told the first lady when a troubling pattern of weight gain appeared. "'You might want to think about doing things a little bit differently,' " Michele Obama said she was told.

That's such a tactful way to put it. Another tactful path would a focus on health issues - long-term as well as short-range - not appearance. With teens, doctors also could help them develop plans that let them be in charge.

Whatever we do, continuing to ignore the issue isn't an option. Parents, doctors and patients all have been trying that to one extent or another, and it's simply not working.

Copyright 2010 Debra Legg. All rights reserved.

Similar Posts:

• Looking for unhealthy teens? Follow the fast-food chain
• For those who needed proof, study links obesity and soda
• Obesity problems aren’t hidden but they might be unseen
• Fudge a factor in the obesity epidemic – and not just the kind on ice cream
• Finally, a nutrition campaign that takes a practical path

]]> http://debralegg.com/2010/03/01/the-first-step-to-solving-a-problem-is-knowing-you-have-it/feed/ 0 http://debralegg.com/2010/02/10/finally-a-nutrition-campaign-that-takes-a-practical-path/ http://debralegg.com/2010/02/10/finally-a-nutrition-campaign-that-takes-a-practical-path/#comments Thu, 11 Feb 2010 03:50:52 +0000 Debra Legg http://debralegg.com/?p=8238 Yes, I eat the occasional burger and fries. Ice cream and cookies, too.

Now that first lady Michelle Obama has stepped into the confessional and admitted as much herself, I feel safe in going public as well.

That's the problem I've had in the past with so many people who think creating forbidden foods is going to solve the obesity epidemic. It's not. Just ask Adam and Eve about those no-nos. And apples are even healthy.

We can tell our kids "just say no to donuts" all we want, but unless we keep them in bubbles from cradle to grave, they're going to encounter junk eventually. The key is in teaching them how to deal with it.

Obama's new "Let's Move" campaign says we deal with it by helping children learn to make healthy choices and by encouraging them to be more active. It also addresses the practical realities that make it harder for some parents to do the right thing for their children.

Barriers such as living in neighborhoods without easy access to stores that sell healthful food - Obama's husband has pledged $400 million in next year's budget to help on that count - as well as lack of adequate nutrition information on products.

Organizations ranging from the American Academy of Pediatrics to Nickelodeon are on board, and companies that operate many school lunch programs have said they'll cut the sodium and fat in the meals.

So far, so good, though admittedly there's still a tough road ahead before this battle is won.

There's the battle of denial - I know parents who insist they don't let junk food in their houses even though they hit the drive-through most nights - though if the pediatricians follow through and begin giving parents "prescriptions" for healthier weights, that should help.

There's the battle of affordability, the one that often means two liters of soda is cheaper than a half gallon of milk.

And there's the battle of inactivity, and that one isn't going to get any easier in an era where schools eliminate physical education classes and video games continue to grow ever more popular.

But at least Obama's picked a rational starting place that's brought together many key players. That's more than you can say for many efforts in the past.

Copyright 2010 Debra Legg. All rights reserved.

In between bouts of burgers and fries I behave myself - raisin bran for breakfast and meatless marinara spiked with spinach over whole-grain spaghetti for dinner yesterday. Lunch sort of disappeared, but I tend to do that when I'm stressed. I'm working on that one, but I doubt it will ever be solved.Similar Posts:

• Looking for unhealthy teens? Follow the fast-food chain
• School lunch do-gooding takes a goofy turn
• A marketing ploy that’s partly true: Eat our pizza, but less of it
• Even if children don’t listen, that doesn’t mean we quit talking
• The first step to solving a problem is knowing you have it

]]> http://debralegg.com/2010/02/10/finally-a-nutrition-campaign-that-takes-a-practical-path/feed/ 0 http://debralegg.com/2010/01/25/im-not-sedentary-im-muscularly-inactive/ http://debralegg.com/2010/01/25/im-not-sedentary-im-muscularly-inactive/#comments Tue, 26 Jan 2010 04:00:31 +0000 Debra Legg http://debralegg.com/?p=8021 I've been eeking out just enough minutes of activity to meet the government's fitness recommendations - they're not as demanding as you think - though my gymophobia holds me back on weeks too wet to ride my bike.

I've never claimed to be in great shape, but I thought I was doing enough to keep from keeling over at Boots' high school graduation.

Now, though, I hear that my paltry program might not be enough to carry me to commencement. Some researchers believe that it doesn't matter if you exercise if you're spending a chunk of the rest of your time on your butt. And let me just say that my chair and I are close personal friends. We'll remain so until someone invents a laptop powered by a treadmill.

“Too much sitting is bad for health,” Australian researcher David Dunstan told Bloomberg News recently. “Avoid sitting for prolonged periods and keep in mind to move more, more often.”

Hmm ... I guess my blazing-fast typing skills aren't burning as many calories as I thought.

Though Dunstan's studies looked specifically at TV - his team found that every hour watching increases the risk of premature death due to heart disease by 18 percent - Swedish researchers suggest there are factors other than tube time coming into play.

They believe that any time spent inactive - and my frequent strolls to the coffee pot aren't enough to move me to the "active" category - has an impact. In fact, they don't even like the word "sedentary." Instead, they prefer "muscular inactivity"

Based purely on anecdotal evidence, I know they're right. During the week, when I spend much time desk-bound, I can see an impact. I don't sleep as soundly, and I'm more inclined to get grumpy.

On the weekends, though, when my seat actually stays out of a seat for most of the day, it's a different story. I'm up, I'm moving. I'm doing laundry, cleaning the house and walking to the convenience store simply because I have time for a stroll.

The Swedish researchers suggest freeing yourself from the butt-sitting rut by working more activity into your day. Take a five-minute break between bouts of sedentary work, they advise.

I think I'll give it a try as soon as I have a chance to warn the neighbors that the thumping sound next door is not a wayward earthquake but me doing jumping jacks.

Copyright 2010 Debra Legg. All rights reserved.

Similar Posts:

• Confessions of a closet snacker
• Obesity problems aren’t hidden but they might be unseen
• Even if children don’t listen, that doesn’t mean we quit talking
• The obesity epidemic might start earlier than we think
• Finally, a nutrition campaign that takes a practical path

]]> http://debralegg.com/2010/01/25/im-not-sedentary-im-muscularly-inactive/feed/ 0 http://debralegg.com/2010/01/18/a-new-law-needed-to-get-current-law-enforced-on-generics/ http://debralegg.com/2010/01/18/a-new-law-needed-to-get-current-law-enforced-on-generics/#comments Tue, 19 Jan 2010 06:35:32 +0000 Debra Legg http://debralegg.com/?p=7943 It's kind of awkward that the Federal Trade Commission wants the health-care bill to include a ban on settlements between drug companies that keep generic drugs off the market - delays the commission says costs consumers $3.5 billion a year.

The ban has actually been around for, oh, 26 years, ever since the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984 outlawed the deals.

The FTC's challenged the settlements, including in a lawsuit filed last year in California. Through 2004, courts consistently ruled that the deals were "automatically" illegal. The commission's not had a lot of luck since 2005 though, in part because the Justice Department has refused to back it.

The commission's Bureau of Competition has gone to the bully pulpit in the past five years, issuing annual reports about the ongoing proliferation of "pay for delay" settlements. "That’s good news for the pharmaceutical industry, which will make windfall profits on these deals," Commissioner Jon Leibowitz said two years ago. "But it’s bad news for consumers, who will be left footing the bill."

The "pay for delay" game starts when another company is able to replicate a brand-name drug. The company's defense when the brand-name manufacturer sues usually is "we just used the same ingredients; not the same recipe."

The lawsuit is settled quickly, with either the brand-name company paying the generic manufacturer to end production or with the generic manufacturer agreeing to pay the brand-name company royalties. Either way, the consumer loses. So do healthy taxpayers - the government pays for about 30 percent of the prescriptions filled in the country.

Congress, meanwhile, has had before it for at least three years legislation that would reiterate the ban. It made it as far as passing the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, and the House added it to the health care bill. The ban isn't in the Senate version, though some are pushing Majority Leader Harry Reid to add it.

It's a strange world when an agency has to go to Congress and beg for the power to enforce a 26-year-old law - a law courts once upheld until Justice Department inertia or something less benign set in. In the end, though, relegislating the issue will be quicker than waiting for it to work its way back through the courts and hoping for good rulings.

Big Pharma will, of course, fight the ban in the Senate. They'll augment their usual "innovation is expensive" argument by pointing to all the money they've already agreed to chip in toward health care reform.

Given the new customers the companies also will benefit from as more Americans become insured, those are hard arguments to swallow. Especially since the ban actually has been in place for more than two decades.

Copyright 2010 Debra Legg. All rights reserved.

Similar Posts:

• When faced with competition, suddenly drug makers can produce generics
• Epiblogue: The curious case of the generic drug that’s not
• Death panels? We already have them
• Trying again to stop deals that delay generic drugs
• Drug companies robbing everybody to pay Paul

]]> http://debralegg.com/2010/01/18/a-new-law-needed-to-get-current-law-enforced-on-generics/feed/ 0 http://debralegg.com/2010/01/11/good-luck-to-new-york-in-its-assault-on-salt/ http://debralegg.com/2010/01/11/good-luck-to-new-york-in-its-assault-on-salt/#comments Tue, 12 Jan 2010 05:38:30 +0000 Debra Legg http://debralegg.com/?p=7840 From the state that led the battle against transfat comes the latest assault on manufacturer-induced nutrition nightmares: New York City wants companies to cut down on the amount of sodium in food.

Good luck on that one. It will be a much harder battle than whacking restaurants around over transfats. For one, there are a number of acceptable substitutes for transfats. For another, when you're fighting only restaurants, getting compliance is pretty easy. Simply say "do it, or we'll shut you down."

This time, though, the Big Apple is taking on big food manufacturers. The companies say all the right things about cutting sodium, but with the caveat of "as long as consumers continue to accept it."

Translation: You can't make us, so we're not going to do it.

As unbelievable as it might seem, there's even a doctor who's willing to caution against the plan.

Dr. Michael H. Alderman, a professor at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, said New York’s initiative would amount to an uncontrolled experiment with the public’s health.

“I’m always worried about unintended consequences,” he told The New York Times.

Funny, but several governments already are concerned about the obvious consequences of an inability to pass on passing the salt. In Canada, where the government recommends considerably less sodium a day than U.S. officials suggest, the medical association calls reducing sodium a major health priority.

Experts blame the problem on manufactured food that's the source of 80 percent of the sodium developed countries consume.

Corn, for example, has little natural sodium - only 13 milligrams or so. Despite what manufacturers say, there's no reason to add it. It's not needed as a preservative. Yet, a third of a cup of Green Giant's canned sweet niblets has the sodium load equal to an eighth of a teaspoon of salt. That's 200 mg - more than a serving of Pringle's, which has only 180.

The U.S. government recommends no more than 2,400 mg a day, so if you eat the Green Giant corn you've accounted for a chunk of that amount in a single side dish. And that's if  you stop at a third of a cup.

While an eighth of a teaspoon might not sound like much, try shaking that much salt into a spoon and see how long it takes. You'd get a repetitive stress injury trying to do it with every dish at every meal. It's far more than you'd use on fresh food.

So if it's not needed, then why is it there? Because salt covers up for the lack of quality ingredients and perks up lesser-grade produce. And because our manufactured-trained tongues crave it.

Even as  sanctimonious as I am, my Campbells-fed taste buds have trouble tolerating homemade chicken noodle soup without adding far more salt than I do to anything else I eat.

Ay, but Campbell's tells the Times that it's already made significant progress in cutting the sodium. While that's true, the company spokeswoman neglected to mention that it's significant progress has resulted in a product that still  has 140 mg per serving in a line marketed to people on sodium-restricted diets. Its "25 percent less" label still has a whopping 660 mg.

That's "significant progress" is you're grading on the curve of sodium levels that already were through the roof. Is is "significant progress" toward where we should be?

No. Good luck, New York, on getting us there.

Copyright 2010 Debra Legg. All rights reserved.Similar Posts:

• Confessions of a closet snacker
• School lunch do-gooding takes a goofy turn
• A marketing ploy that’s partly true: Eat our pizza, but less of it
• For those who needed proof, study links obesity and soda
• Finally, a nutrition campaign that takes a practical path

]]> http://debralegg.com/2010/01/11/good-luck-to-new-york-in-its-assault-on-salt/feed/ 0 http://debralegg.com/2009/12/02/parent-mentors-for-childhood-asthma/ http://debralegg.com/2009/12/02/parent-mentors-for-childhood-asthma/#comments Thu, 03 Dec 2009 06:28:46 +0000 Debra Legg http://debralegg.com/?p=7522 With a callous eye toward the bottom line, insurance companies unhesitantly ax coverage for medications asthmatic children need. Don't deny it. It's happened to us.

If executives won't shell out $300 to prevent an emergency room visit that could easily cost five times that amount, maybe they'll agree to pay $60.42 a month for something that's proven to reduce wheezing, other asthma complications and emergency room visits.

According to research published this month in Pediatrics, that something is a parent mentor, assigned meet monthly with families at community sites and in their homes. The mentors also phone the families regularly.

In addition to healthier children and lower ER use, the program also boosted parents' abilities to treat asthma at home. There also was a net savings of $46 a month for the parents - that doesn't count the savings for insurance companies or hospitals.

The mentors were experienced parents of asthmatic children who received some additional training. They were people who could understand every concern, clear up every misconception and calm many fears of the other parents because they've been there.

Asthma is a tricky disease. Left uncontrolled, it can be fatal. When treated with the proper medications and care, though, it can be reduced to the level of an occasional problem. That's the part that throws off many asthmatics, particularly when they're new to dealing with it. They'll drop their guard after worry-free weeks or months, and then they'll get hit again.

Asthma requires vigilance and watchful eye for signs of trouble. That sounds simple, but for some it's hard to learn to recognize those signs until trouble has hit full force. It's a challenge for some people to even tell the difference between wheezing and normal coughing or huffing and puffing from exertion.

That's why the mentors were so valuable. They can help parents learn these things - lessons that can protect their children and save money.

We've long known that in-home intervention helps with many childhood problems. It's been more than 30 years since Dr. David Olds created a program that sent nurses into homes to mentor struggling parents. The Nurse-Family Partnership has been an unequivocal success in the decades since in terms of reducing the need for public aid and instances of child abuse.

Johns Hopkins University is beginning research to see if in-home nurses would have the same impact for asthmatics as they did for other at-risk children.

That seems a little re-inventing the wheelish given the results the University of Texas researchers already have published in Pediatrics, but I'm sure it will take more than once to convince insurance companies to foot the bill.

Copyright 2009 Debra Legg. All rights reserved.

Similar Posts:

• Parents can have big impact on little people with asthma
• When faced with competition, suddenly drug makers can produce generics
• Epiblogue: The curious case of the generic drug that’s not
• Living with asthma
• Add an inhaler to that TIVO package

]]> http://debralegg.com/2009/12/02/parent-mentors-for-childhood-asthma/feed/ 0