Originally Denied by the EPA, the Federal Government Now Acknowledges the Link between Ground Zero Air and Cancer
Two weeks ago, New York City held the 11th annual name-reading ceremony for the victims who died in the collapse of the towers on September 11, 2001. Missing from the ceremony, however, were the names of victims who died years after the attacks. Since 9/11, a multitude of ground zero workers, first responders, and inhabitants of Lower Manhattan have been diagnosed with a variety of diseases, including cancer and mesothelioma, believed due, and now presumed to be due, to exposure to toxic dust. Some have died from their illness, some survived, and some are yet to be diagnosed.
On 9/11, people from all over the nation rushed to New York City to help with search and rescue. After the search and rescue mission ended, workers were hired to clean up and dispose of the rubble. Since the twin towers were constructed during the 1970s, there was an obvious concern that asbestos used to insulate the buildings, not banned at the time of construction, would pose major health and air quality concerns.
Former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman and then administrative head of the EPA assured the public that there was no need for alarm. After reviewing scientific data, Whitman issued a statement on September 18, 2001 declaring the area safe for workers and nearby inhabitants. In a press release, EPA Administrator Whitman stated,
“‘We are very encouraged that the results from our monitoring of air-quality and drinking-water conditions in both New York and near the Pentagon show that the public in these areas is not being exposed to excessive levels of asbestos or other harmful substances,’ [...] ‘Given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York . . . that their air is safe to breathe and the water is safe to drink.’”
The credibility of this data was later called into question. In 2006, senior EPA scientist Dr. Cate Jenkins addressed a letter to members of the New York Congressional delegation stating,
“[T]est reports in 2002 and 2003 distorted the alkalinity, or pH level, of the dust released when the twin towers collapsed, downplaying its danger. [...] The test results helped the E.P.A. avoid legal liability. [... and] had a costly health effect, contributing ‘to emergency personnel and citizens not taking adequate precautions to prevent exposures.’”
During a June 2007 Congressional hearing, former Governor Whitman received harsh criticism for her statements assuring ground zero workers and Lower Manhattan inhabitants of safe air quality. When pressed to acknowledge that the toxic dust from the collapsed buildings contributed to illness, she declined. Whitman stated that a lack of conclusive evidence existed “linking the dust to disease.” She denied any presence of pressure placed on her to report the air safe in order to quickly reopen the financial district. She also expressed no regret for her statements in 2001.
Victims of ground zero exposure brought multiple lawsuits against Christine Todd Whitman, however; the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that Whitman could not be held liable.
In January 2011, President Barack Obama signed into law the Zadroga Act, which expanded the September 11th Victim’s Compensation Fund to include ground zero workers who died from cancer or respiratory diseases, “under the presumption that the cause was due to exposure during recovery efforts.” The act “sets aside money for medical care and $2.775 billion dollars to compensate claimants for lost wages and other damages related to the illnesses.”
Although initially excluded from the Act, the Act was amended to include cancer to the list of ground zero diseases, acknowledging a link between ground zero air and cancer. To date, 50 types of cancers will be covered. Noah Kushlefsky, an attorney representing 3,800 ground zero victims, foresees that with the addition of cancer, the $2.775 billion will be exhausted before all the victims receive adequate compensation. The addition of numerous cancers to be covered by the Act comes on the heels of Congressional attempts to reduce the deficit. The Zadroga Act faces $300 million in cuts.
The FealGood Foundation, an organization dedicated to supporting the health and welfare of 9/11 first responders, compiled a list of known first responders with cancer and those who died from cancer on their website. Ground zero victims and their families are now seeking legal representation in order to access the victim’s fund.
Filed under: Accountable Care Organizations, Health Law, Seton Hall Law
In conjunction with the Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law & Policy, this year’s SETON HALL LAW REVIEW Symposium will explore recent changes in the structure of health care delivery, in particular the rising popularity of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs).
Legal scholars and practitioners from around the country will present panel discussions on structural development, public health implications and lessons learned from state ACO programs. Luncheon keynote speaker will be Dr. Jeffrey Brenner, founder of the Camden Coalition of Healthcare Providers.
Scheduled Panels & Panelists include
Introduction to Accountable Care Organizations
Jorge Lopez (Partner, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP): Promise and Pitfalls: Health Reform’s Medicare ACO Shared Savings Program
Hal Teitelbaum (CEO and Managing Partner, Crystal Run Healthcare): The Prospect of Being Hanged: Focusing the Physician Mind on ACOs
Michael Kalison (Chairman of Applied Medical Software, Inc.; Of Counsel, McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney, & Carpenter): The Lessons of Gainsharing
ACOs in Theory: Issues Raised by Integrated Delivery
Jessica Mantel (Co-Director, Health Law & Policy Institute, University of Houston, Law Center): ACOs: Can we have our cake and eat it too?
Priscilla Keith (Adjunct Professor and Director of Research and Projects, Hall Center for Law and Health, Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis): The Impact of Accountable Care Organizations on Public Health
Tara Ragone (Research Fellow, Seton Hall Law School): The Role of Competition in Integrated Delivery: ACOs, Federal and State Antitrust Law, and the State Action Doctrine
Jeffrey Brenner, M.D., Founder & Executive Director, Camden Coalition of Healthcare Providers
Jeffrey Brenner is a family physician and has practiced in Camden for eleven years as a front-line primary care provider for patients of all ages. Having owned a private practice in Camden, he has experience in implementing electronic health records and running a paperless office, open-access scheduling, as well as first-hand knowledge of the various challenges facing primary care in the current health system.
He currently serves full-time as the Coalition’s Executive Director, where he spends much of his time meeting with stakeholders and policymakers, advocating for the models of care the Coalition has developed and demonstrated through data centric results. Jeff is a faculty member of the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in Camden and is also a former resident of Camden, having lived in the city for over 8 years. He is a graduate of Vassar College and the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School.
ACOs in Practice: Research on Current Implementation of ACOs
Louise Trubek (Clinical Professor, University of Wisconsin Law School), Barbara Zabawa (Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek, S.C); Felice Borisy-Rudin (University of Wisconsin Law School): Accountable care organizations in two states: A preliminary analysis
Sallie Sanford (Assistant Professor of Law, University of Washington – School of Law & School of Public Health): State-based ACO and Medical Home Pilots: Early Lessons from the Other Washington
John Jacobi (Faculty Director & Dorothea Dix Professor of Health Law & Policy, Seton Hall University School of Law), Lessons from ACO Implementation in New Jersey.
Thomas Greaney (Chester A. Myers Professor of Law and Director, Center for Health Law Studies, Saint Louis University School of Law), Accountable Care Organizations: A New New Thing with Some Old Problems.
The event will take place at Seton Hall Law School with luncheon served at The Newark Club, One Newark Center, 22nd floor. There is no charge for Seton Hall Law alumni; cost for all others, $25. Four NJ/NY CLE credits will be available. Visit http://law.shu.edu/lawreviewsymposium to register. For more information regarding the Symposium, please contact Gianna Cricco-Lizza, Symposium Editor, at email@example.com.
As a follow up to my previous post on junk food marketing to children and my earlier post on MyPlate — and any other post that I’ve written about children and fast food or junk food — I would like to direct your attention to a commentary recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association which has caused quite a stir. In “State Intervention in Life-Threatening Childhood Obesity,” Dr. David Ludwig (Director of the Optimal Weight for Life Program at Children’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts) and lawyer Lindsey Murtagh (Research Associate for the Department of Health Policy and Management at Harvard School of Public Health) confront severe childhood obesity — which is “characterized by a body mass index (BMI) at or beyond the 99th percentile” — with what appears to be a wild and rash line of thought: remove severely obese children from their homes and place them into foster care.
In their commentary, Dr. Ludwig and Ms. Murtagh write that
[s]tate intervention may serve the best interests of many children with life-threatening obesity, comprising the only realistic way to control harmful behaviors. Child protective services typically provide intermediate options such as in-home social supports, parenting training, counseling, and financial assistance, that may address underlying problems without resorting to removal. These less burdensome forms of legal intervention may be sufficient and therefore preferable in many cases. In some instances, support services may be insufficient to prevent severe harm, leaving foster care or bariatric surgery as the only alternatives. Although removal of the child from the home can cause families great emotional pain, this option lacks the physical risks of bariatric surgery.
However, the authors also acknowledge that
removal from the home does not guarantee improved physical health, and substantial psychosocial morbidity may ensue. Thus, the decision to pursue this option must be guided by carefully defined criteria… with less intrusive methods used whenever possible.
Reading through the commentary, one senses an exasperated tone more than anything else. After all, the authors cite a mind-numbing statistic: there are approximately 2 million severely obese children in the United States. And how should we treat this epidemic? With bariatric surgery you say? And so the authors wonder aloud whether “removal from the home may be justifiable from a legal standpoint because of imminent health risks and the parents’ chronic failure to address medical problems.”
Let’s set aside the legal arguments for a minute and discuss the heart of the matter: America’s eating habits. Specifically, America’s childrens’ eating habits. In a response post on MSNBC, Arthur Caplan, Director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, criticized Dr. Ludwig and Ms. Murtagh by focusing on other obesity-causing factors, such as the unhealthy “food culture,” that pervades the United States. Professor Caplan wrote
I am not letting parents off the hook. But, putting the blame for childhood obesity on the home and then arguing that moving kids out of homes where obesity reigns is the answer is short-sighted and doomed to fail. We need the nation to go on a diet together and the most important places to start are at the grocery store, schools and media.
On Booster Shots, the Los Angeles Times health blog, Chris Woolston wrote that removing children from their homes and placing them into foster care will not fix poor eating habits because
[c]hildhood obesity is complicated. Fast food, sodas, TV, video games — many staples of modern life are pushing kids in the wrong direction. While researching a book on this topic a few years ago, I spoke with several moms who were tackling their child’s weight troubles with varying levels of success. One considered putting locks on her cabinets to keep her son from sneaking food in the middle of the night.
Her son was definitely on the large side — beyond that, really — but it’s not because his mom didn’t care. And even if someone had placed him in a foster home it wouldn’t have solved his problems. As a rule, those places have food in their cupboards, too.
Hear, hear. Wake up, folks. We need a food culture revolution with healthier and affordable alternatives. One which teaches our children to choose healthy foods and to eat in moderation. Because what else must we do before everyone finally, in the words of Professor Caplan, “[d]emonize[s] the companies that sell and market food that is not nutritious” and “[p]ut[s] exercise back on the menu for all school kids”? Institute state programs that remove severely obese children from their homes and place them into foster care? Oh, wait….
We’ve reported on the distribution of health care costs among populations on numerous occasions here at Health Reform Watch. Over the last decades, our own Professor John V. Jacobi has been espousing reform, at times as almost a voice in the wilderness, as a matter of dealing in caring and cost conscious ways with chronic conditions.
Twenty-five percent of the U.S. community population were reported to have one or more of five major chronic conditions:
- Mood disorders
- Heart disease
Spending to treat these five conditions alone amounted to $62.3 billion in 1996. Moreover, people with chronic conditions tend to have other conditions and illnesses. , according to 1996 MEPS data. On an individual level, treatment for the average patient with asthma was $663 per year in 1996, but when the full cost of care for asthma and other coexistent illnesses is taken into account, the average cost was $2,779.
When the other illnesses are added in, total expenses for people with these five major chronic conditions rise to $270 billion, or 49 percent of total health care costs.
Expenses for people with one chronic condition were twice as great as for those without any chronic conditions. Spending for those with five or more chronic conditions was about 14 times greater than spending for those without any chronic conditions. Persons with five or more conditions also have high hospital expenditures. In New York State during 2002, of the 1.3 million different persons admitted to the hospital, the 27 percent with five or more chronic conditions accounted for 47 percent of all inpatient costs.
I have also noted in July of 2009 that
…32% of Medicare costs are attributable to diabetes. It is no stretch to say that if we have a Medicare cost problem in this country (we do), what we really have is a diabetes problem (and, considering Halvorsen’s “we only get it right 8% of the time” figure, a diabetes treatment problem as well).
But first things first. 32% is a mere scooch (yes, that’s the technical term) away from ONE THIRD. That’s an enormous number. If one were to relate this portion of Medicare expense to houesehold expenditures, it occupies a place similar to a mortgage– but an expensive mortgage in a house that no one wants to live in.
And now a further health cost demographic from NPR’s Marketplace in conjunction with WHYY’s Health Desk, Gregory Warner. And yes, it’s about chronic conditions:
Tess Vigeland: Take everything this country spends on health care — the government, employers, patients — and it rounds out to a little over $8,000 per person on average.
But averages don’t really tell the whole story. A study by the National Institute for Healthcare Management found that in 2009, 15 percent of us had no health care costs at all. While at the other end, 5 percent accounted for almost half of all health care costs: $1.2 trillion.
Gregory Warner: Maybe you picture this high-cost patient as someone at the end of life, confined to a hospital bed and hooked up to expensive medical devices. But more likely, you’ll find this person at home or in a nursing home, living with five or more chronic conditions.
Filed under: Chronic Health Conditions, Public Health
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently announced a $100 million program through which states can reward Medicaid enrollees who adopt healthy behaviors. The grant program is part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and allows states to offer incentives for tobacco cessation, controlling or reducing weight, lowering cholesterol or blood pressure, and avoiding the onset of diabetes or improving management of the condition. The goal of the program is prevention, as spending on chronic conditions is said to account for more than 75 percent of annual healthcare expenditures in the U.S.
According to CMS Administrator Dr. Donald Berwick,
With the right incentives, we believe that people can change their behaviors and stop smoking or lose weight. Not only can preventive programs help to improve individuals’ health, by keeping people healthy we can also lower the nation’s overall health care costs.
States are not limited to direct cash incentives– proposed plans could include waiving premiums, deductibles and coinsurance payments, or offering coupons or gift certificates for weight management classes or tobacco cessation counseling.
CMS has based the program on data suggesting a short-term change in behavior when people are offered monetary incentives. Current research shows that while people may be internally motivated to make healthier decisions because of future consequences, they don’t often weigh those delayed outcomes with the immediate reward of engaging in the behavior. For example, knowing that smoking increases lung cancer risk 20 years from now isn’t always going to stop someone from smoking a cigarette. The benefit of monetary incentives is therefore their immediacy– they replace one unhealthy reward with another less harmful one. In short, CMS is betting that someone would put down that cigarette right now if you just paid them to.
But the experience of making healthy decisions seems to align more with what Mark Twain opined in Following the Equator,
He had had much experience of physicians, and said “the only way to keep your health is to eat what you don’t want, drink what you don’t like, and do what you’d druther not.
Though an individual may make a healthy choice now because they would prefer a cash incentive, that doesn’t automatically change their instinctual behavior. Someone could theoretically be convinced to take a grocery store gift card instead of buying a fast food dinner, but that does not change how much they enjoy the taste of a cheeseburger. In many circumstances, people engage in certain behaviors simply because they like to. For this very reason, critics are quick to point out that monetary incentives are unlikely to spur long-term changes in unhealthy habits. Critics also note that there is little research on whether these incentives will be successful in the Medicaid beneficiary population.
What may redeem the initiative from these criticisms is that CMS is candidly calling it a ”demonstration program,” designed to figure out which strategies produce long-term behavioral changes. By allowing states to develop their own programs and keep data on the experience, CMS seems to be hedging its bets, wagering that at least one program will provide a successful model. Further, CMS can use the data to evaluate other factors such as the administrative costs incurred by states in rendering the programs.
Could $100 million federal grant dollars be used to support preventative health in a different way? Of course. But as long as this money is being set aside to incentivize healthy behavior, we may get an answer to whether external motivators spur long term behavior change. I, for one, would love to know just how much money it costs to convince someone to stop smoking, or to consistently trade in that Big Mac for some broccoli. It almost has to be cheaper than what we’re doing right now.