2012 Commentary on the Supreme Court's Healthcare Decision

Abstract: The Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act might not be popular. However, I believe the justices made the right decision in leaving it up to the American people to choose whether or not to keep the healthcare legislation intact.

U.S. Supreme Court Building at Dusk (1)

According to Yahoo News, on Thursday, June 28, the Supreme Court upheld most of the provisions in The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (usually shortened to Affordable Care Act). Importantly, by a 5-4 vote, the justices stated that the individual mandate is constitutional. This portion of the legislation allows the federal government, with some exceptions, to collect fees from uninsured individuals. Per The Hill, a majority of the public wanted the Supreme Court to throw out all or part of the health care act. However, I believe the justices made the right decision in this case.

Many Americans, including me, might have reservations about the Affordable Care Act; however, they have to admit that the legislation was crafted by popularly elected officials in the House and Senate. That is the way it should be. The fate of the Affordable Care Act should be determined by elected representatives, who are beholden to the voters, and not by appointed officials. The Supreme Court's ruling ensures that this will be the case. The American people will now decide, via their votes in November, whether or not the Affordable Care Act is repealed.

And while the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the individual mandate might not be popular, it is preferable to a scenario in which the justices threw out this portion of the healthcare bill but left everything else intact. As I noted in a previous article, the latter outcome would have created a potential nightmare situation that required federal and state government agencies to provide insurance coverage to all Americans without allocating the funds necessary to achieve this result.

Finally, The Washington Post notes that Republicans are supportive of some parts of the current healthcare law. If that is the case, the Supreme Court's decision is in the best interests of the American people. Whichever party wins in November will find it much easier to repeal sections of the Affordable Care Act it dislikes than to go through the agonizing task of trying to create sweeping new healthcare legislation to replace the current bill. Such a process would not only run the risk of failure, it would waste taxpayer dollars on redundant research and debate. Just as important, it would divert legislators' attentions from other, important issues like immigration reform and Iran.

The Supreme Court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act might not be popular. However, I believe the justices made the right decision in leaving it up to the American people to choose whether or not to keep the healthcare legislation intact when they go to the polls in November.

1. Noclip. (2007, May 7). Supreme Court - Front: At Dusk. Retrieved from Wikimedia Commons.
         The author has placed the image in the public domain without restrictions.


The author is a freelance writer. He has worked in the health care industry for almost a decade and has interned with a health policy think tank. He has a M.S. in Health Systems Administration from Georgetown University.

-- Anthony Hopper

#SupremeCourt #law #ACA #ObamaCare #AffordableCareAct #healthcare #health #medicine #legal

First Book to Be Published Soon

I apologize to all of my readers for my long absence from the blogosphere.  In recent months, I have had to eschew blogging and other freelance writing activities in order to focus more intently on my teaching career and to devote additional time to completing my first book.

I am happy to announce that I have now finished that project.  The book, which is called Using Data Management Techniques to Modernize Healthcare, will be released by CRC Press on August 6 of this year.  The link is below.

Using Data Management Techniques to Modernize Healthcare

Now that I have completed this project, I hope to begin blogging again (and to read others' blogs) in earnest; however, to borrow an old cliche, "We will see."

#health #healthcare #healthcareIT #IT #business #blogging #personal

2012 Commentary: Obama Should Address Medicare, Increase Funding for Medical Research

Abstract: During his second term, President Barack Obama needs to focus on an important issue facing our nation-the graying of the American populace. He can fix this problem by increasing federal funding for medical research and by reforming the Medicare system. CONTENT:

Biodesign buildings at Arizona State University (1).

 I congratulate President Barack Obama on his election night victory. I hope that he will be able to put partisanship aside and work with both parties in Congress to deal with an important issue facing our nation: the graying of the American populace. Obama can ameliorate this problem by keeping a 2008 promise to increase federal funding for medical research and by reforming the Medicare system.

The Census Bureau estimates that around 40 million Americans are currently older than 65. That number will increase dramatically, to 88.5 million people, by 2050. This senior citizen boom will place a serious burden on the U.S. health care system. As worrisome, some experts predict that the burgeoning senior population will bankrupt Medicare by 2024 if nothing is done to address the issue.

The president can help address the problems associated with the senior citizen boom if he keeps a 2008 promise to increase federal funding for medical research. Specifically, Obama should allocate billions of dollars toward the study of age related diseases. Armed with increased resources, scientists can make a concerted effort to find cures (or at least better treatments) for Alzheimer's disease and other debilitating, age-onset illnesses.

Obama should also work with Congress to make sure that Medicare does not go bankrupt in the foreseeable future. He can ensure Medicare's viability by increasing funding for the program or by restructuring it. Whichever method he chooses, the president must do something. Americans of all ages need to know that Medicare will be there for them when they retire. The issue is too important to be put aside.

1. Photographer:  Nick Schweitzer
    Date: January 15, 2007
    Title/Description: Biodesign buildings at Arizona State University.
    Location/Permission: Wikimedia Commons - Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic
                                     license (click on the title or caption to see the photo, credits, and permissions).

-- Anthony Hopper

#politics #Obama #president #PresidentObama #Democrats #opinion

2012 Commentary: Virginia's Leaders Should Focus on Three Key Issues in the Coming Months

ABSTRACT: Virginia’s elected officials should focus their efforts on three key issues over the next year. These issues revolve around the fiscal cliff, the state's health insurance exchange, and the 2013 gubernatorial election.

Virginia's elected officials should focus their efforts on three key issues over the next year. Perhaps most importantly, they must plan ahead in case the fiscal cliff scenario becomes a reality. Additionally, the governor and state delegates need to work together to create a blueprint for Virginia's health insurance exchange. They also need to pass legislation to ensure that the 2013 gubernatorial election runs smoothly.

Plan for the Fiscal Cliff

The president and Congress have until Jan. 1 to broker a deal to avoid the fiscal cliff -- a series of preset tax increases and budget cuts. If they are unable to reach an agreement, the federal government's 2013 budget will be cut by approximately $109 billion. The cuts will hit Virginia hard; federal spending accounts (directly or indirectly) for around 33 percent of the state's economy. A George Mason professor estimates that more than 207,000 Virginian workers will lose their jobs in 2013 if the federal cutbacks occur. Virginia's elected officials have begun to prepare for this event. They have set aside $30 million, which can be used to help citizens impacted by the fiscal cliff, and the governor has asked state agencies to prepare in advance for federal cutbacks. However, Virginia's elected officials should devote even more attention to this issue in the coming weeks.

Draft a Blueprint for the Health Insurance Exchange

The Affordable Care Act mandates that states, including Virginia, need to have operational health insurance exchanges in place by 2014. In 2011, Virginia passed a law declaring its intent to create an exchange. However, the governor has so far refused to work with state delegates to finalize a blueprint for the exchange. State officials have to submit this plan to federal authorities soon if they want Virginia, and not the U.S. government, to run the state's health insurance exchange when it becomes operational in 2014.

Ensure the 2013 Gubernatorial Election Runs Smoothly

Many Virginians waited in long lines to cast their votes in the most recent election. They also had to deal with issues relating to the new state voter I.D. law. Virginia officials need to work to correct these problems before the gubernatorial election on Nov. 5. They have a number of options open to them, including hiring more election-day workers and adjusting absentee voting rules.

-- Anthony Hopper

#Virginia #history #politics #opinion

2012 Commentary: Parents Need to Put the Cancer Risks in Perspective when Deciding Whether or Not to Limit Their Children's Cellphone Use

Abstract: Some scientists argue that children who use cellphones are at increased risk of developing brain cancer. My article asks whether or not parents need to worry about this issue.

A Cellphone (1)

The debate on whether or not cellphone use increases the risk of brain tumors is a hot topic once again. Per an ABC News article (posted on Yahoo), Environmental Health Trust, a non-profit watchdog organization, has criticized a 2011 study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that did not find any link between cell phone use and brain cancer in children. In a press release, Health Trust points to the Letters to the Editor (from scientists) responding to the study, which were recently posted in the Journal. Per these correspondences, the 2011 research project actually demonstrates "that children who used cell phones had a 115 percent increased risk of [developing] brain tumors over those who did not." Should parents be concerned by these statements?

Parents should keep in mind that, per the aforementioned ABC News article, only one major study, the research project published in 2011, has attempted to determine whether or not a child's cellphone use will increase his or her risks of developing brain cancer. Another large study, which is also looking at this problem, is under way but has not yet posted any results. One should be leery of any data that comes out at this early stage in the research process.

Even if Environmental Health Trust is correct and children who use cellphones increase their short term risks of getting brain cancer by up to 115 percent, parents might still not have to worry about limiting their kids' cell phone use. That is because the odds of a youth developing brain cancer are extremely small, so even a child who has a much higher risk (than average) of getting the disease will have little to fear. To put this issue in perspective, the Pediatric Brain Tumor Foundation estimates that 4,200 U.S. children out of a total population of 75.6 million (per Childstats.gov) "are diagnosed with a pediatric brain tumor" each year. If those figures are correct, a child living in the U.S. has a 0.006 percent chance of developing brain cancer in any given year; this percentage will not rise dramatically even if his or her risk of getting the disease increases by 115 percent. A person's chances of developing brain cancer sometime in his or her adult life due to cellphone use are also quite small per NPR.

Of course, brain cancer is a devastating disease, and parents have every right to restrict or even prohibit their children from using cellphones. Nonetheless, people may find it useful to put the Environmental Health Trust's statements in perspective when weighing the risks and rewards of letting their children utilize these devices.

1. Photographer: Jamie Barrows
    Date: May 1, 2007
    Title/Description: Picture of cellphone.
    Location/Permission: Wikimedia Commons- Photographer's note (click on the title or caption to see
    the photo, credits, and permissions).

-- Anthony Hopper

#cellphones #health #technology #parents #children

2012 Commentary: What Happens if the Supreme Court Only Invalidates the Individual Mandate?

Abstract: This week, the Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments with regards to the Obama administration's healthcare legislation. I examine the consequences for Americans if the Court chooses only to invalidate the individual mandate portion of the bill.

The front of the United States Supreme Court building (1).

In 2010, the Democratic-controlled Congress and Senate passed two bills, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, which made sweeping changes to America's healthcare system. The legislation has engendered passionate feelings on both sides. Proponents claim that the bill is a constitutionally sound measure that will improve the healthcare system, while critics deride it as undemocratic.

This week, the Supreme Court is listening to oral arguments from both proponents and critics of the healthcare legislation in an effort to determine, once and for all, which side is correct. It is possible that the Court will choose either to throw out the entire piece of legislation or to rule that every element in the current bill is constitutional. However, it is just as likely that the Court will decide to eliminate the individual mandate (requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance) from the legislation while leaving the remainder of the bill virtually untouched. If the latter scenario plays out, what impact will it have on Americans?

If the Court throws out the individual mandate, the federal government, per a CBO report, will lose the billions of dollars in revenue it would likely have gained from tax penalties imposed on Americans who refuse to purchase healthcare. If this happens, the U.S. may have to borrow money to fund the healthcare program, thereby adding to the national debt. Alternatively, it could choose to cut corners when it comes to implementing portions of the legislation, which would be detrimental to all Americans. Finally, government agencies and hospitals would likely have to expend significantly more than expected on charity care for the uninsured.

Perhaps more dire, if the Court only invalidates the individual mandate portion of the healthcare legislation, it might create a governmental nightmare of epic proportions. As Merrill Goozner notes in a MedCity article, insurance companies participating in the government sponsored health exchanges can only offer their products at a reasonable cost if their pools include a certain percentage of young, healthy subscribers. If young people do not purchase health insurance in sufficient numbers, the insurance companies might have to exit the health exchanges or risk going under. In that scenario, federal and state governments would be in an untenable situation. They would be required by law to maintain a vibrant health exchange; however they would not be able to convince any insurance companies to offer plans through the system. That is the worst-case scenario. At the very least, according to Goozner, healthcare costs for people using the exchanges will rise by at least 10 percent if the individual mandate is invalidated by the Court.

The Supreme Court will soon decide the fate of the Obama administration's healthcare legislation. If the Court chooses to invalidate only the individual mandate section in the bill, it might create some significant problems that will be difficult for either the federal or state governments to fix.

1. Photographer: Morriswa
    Date: September 2, 2011
    Title/Description: The front of the United States Supreme Court building.
    Location/Permission: Wikimedia Commons - Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported
    license (click on the title/link or caption/link for photo, credits, permissions).

-- Anthony Hopper

#ACA #AffordableCareAct #ObamaCare #politics #Obama #legal #health #healthcare

Five Popular Myths and Misconceptions

ABSTRACT: We live in the Information Age. Despite this fact (or perhaps because of it), many of us still subscribe to common myths and hold fast to outdated concepts. Here are five of these popular myths and misconceptions.

St. Patrick stepping on a snake-Courtesy of Microsoft Word

We live in the Information Age. We are creating new data at a dizzying pace. Unlike in previous generations, we often do not have to wait for this knowledge to appear in a book, a newspaper, or a magazine before we can gain access to it. Instead, we can obtain this information almost instantly via a simple Google search.
Despite this fact (or perhaps because of it), many of us still subscribe to common myths and hold fast to outdated concepts.

Here are five of these popular myths and misconceptions.

Blinded by the Television?

When you were a child, did your parents warn you that you would go blind if you sat too close to the television? If your mom and dad gave you this advice, they were only following conventional wisdom. However, it turns out that your parents were wrong on this one. Researchers have studied the issue and have conclusively proven that people will not suffer any ill effects from sitting close to the TV set.

Abner Doubleday Strikes Out

Many of us, at least those of us who are Americans, would be surprised to learn that Doubleday did not invent the game of baseball. It appears that this popular myth goes all the way back to 1907. In that year a special baseball commission, convened by a businessman named A.G. Spalding, anointed Doubleday as baseball's founder. Unfortunately, the commission was wrong. Scholars now believe that another man, Alexander Cartwright, should claim this title. Researchers might be convinced of this fact; however many Americans continue to cling to the Doubleday myth.

The Brontosaurus Never Walked the Earth

In the 1880s paleontologist, O.C. Marsh, announced to the world that he had found a new plant eating dinosaur. He called it a brontosaurus. However, Marsh's brontosaurus was actually an apatosaurus-a previously known dinosaur type. Scientists realized the mistake as early as 1903; however, many of us (laypeople) still believe that the brontosaurus existed. Merriam-Webster admitted as much in a recent edition of its popular dictionary, when it listed "brontosaurus" as a synonym for "apatosaurus."

Is Reading in the Dark Harmful?

When I was young, my parents scolded me for reading a book in near darkness. They told me that I would harm my vision if I did not turn on some lights. It appears that I was not the only child who received this rebuke. Luckily for me and for millions of other individuals, this is one parental lesson that we can ignore. Experts assert that reading in the dark is not hazardous to our health.

Benjamin Franklin and Bifocals

Like many other children, I grew up believing that Benjamin Franklin invented bifocals. Even PBS credits Franklin for coming up with the idea. However, a number of historians doubt the veracity of this statement. Instead, they assert that someone living in London created the first bifocal lenses. The jury is still out on this one; however the circumstantial evidence points to someone other than Franklin as the inventor of this eye accessory.

The author is a freelance writer and has a B.A. in History from Roanoke College.

-- Anthony Hopper

#myths #history #baseball #MLB #dinosaurs #reading #TV

Create a Prize to Cure Cancer - 2013

Abstract: Cancer kills more than 550,000 Americans each year and disables many more. President Obama and Congress might be able to speed up research into cancer cures by adopting an innovative funding plan.

In 2013, President Barack Obama and Congress will tackle a number of important issues. However, they will likely ignore one of the United States' most pressing problems-the war on cancer. The disease is an insidious one. Over 12 million U.S. citizens have been diagnosed with cancer (at some point in their lives). More than 550,000 of them die each year from the disease. Many young and middle-aged Americans who survive are unable to work any longer. Per the Council for Disability Awareness, "cancer was the 2nd leading cause of new disability claim[s]."

B: Cancer Cell Division (1)

Since Nixon increased federal funding for cancer research in 1971, scientists have made progress in treating some types of cancer. However, they have not achieved many significant breakthroughs in their fight to eradicate the disease. Their lack of success is partly due to money. The U.S. government and private entities spend over $5 billion per year on cancer research; however, that amount is not nearly enough. Additionally, experts criticize these funding agencies for focusing on conservative, low-reward projects over more innovative ones.

The president and Congress might be able to fix these problems in 2013 without increasing appropriations for cancer research. Further, the plan would likely garner bipartisan support, and that is something which is truly rare nowadays.

In short, the president and Congress could create a large prize centered on curing cancer. Similar to the X-Prize, the federal government would agree to provide a large reward to a company or individual who, for instance, found a cure for a certain type of breast cancer or developed a groundbreaking treatment for prostate cancer.

Both Republicans and Democrats might be inclined to support a government sponsored cancer prize fund. The plan should appeal to Republicans because it does not require the federal government to expend a significant amount of extra resources-at least immediately. Additionally, the incentive program might create jobs in the private sector. Democrats can promote the cancer prize as an extension of President Obama's current drive to increase the number of federally sponsored, incentive based programs.

Everyone would win by promoting a government sponsored cancer prize fund. The public would not lose much if the program proves to be ineffective. If the plan does lead to a cure for one or more cancers, then the federal money will be well spent.

1. Creator: National Institutes of Health
    Date: September 17, 2005
    Title/Description: Normal Cell Division vs. Cancer Cell Division 
     Location/Permission: Wikimedia Commons - Government product (see notes in Wikimedia - click on
     title/link to see original link).

#cancer #disease #health #politics #obama #prize

-- Anthony Hopper

Five Technological Advances that Might Change the Way We Live

ABSTRACT: Our society has changed rapidly over last few decades, as a result of technological advances. Just think, it was not too long ago that most of us were using maps to get around town. Here are five major changes which could impact our lives over the next decade.

We live in an age of rapid change. Just ask video rental stores and desktop computer makers. They have watched their business models crumble in only a few years' time, due to advances in technology. A decade ago, most people relied on maps to get around town, and their cellphones could only perform a limited number of functions. Now, many of them use highly developed GPS devices to navigate the streets, and their phones are more sophisticated than some computers. The pace of change is not likely to slow down over the next decade. In fact, it might speed up.

Here are five major changes which could impact our lives within the next 10 years.

Cable Becomes Passé

Cable and satellite TV providers are currently in positions of power. A Nielsen survey estimates that around 90 percent of "U.S. households pay for a TV subscription." These companies also bring in significant amounts of revenue by providing Americans with high speed Internet and land-based telephone services.
However, the cable and satellite companies' stranglehold on the television programming market might be nearing an end. Growing numbers of people are starting to turn to the Internet for their movies and shows. According to a Nielsen report, three million homes have dropped their pay for TV subscriptions in the last five years. Many of these people use the Internet to stream their shows and movies. Granted only a small percentage of Americans currently choose to eschew cable and satellite. However, the figure could grow significantly over the coming decade, as the number of Internet TV options grows. To make matters worse, the pay for TV companies are also dealing with threats to their high speed Internet business from competitors like Google and from the proliferation of free WI-FI hotspots.

Digitized Textbooks Become the Norm

Microsoft Office

Most Americans, both young and old, can relate to the student who has to lug around a heavy backpack filled with an assortment of hardcover and paperback textbooks. However, a growing number of students are beginning to eschew traditional textbooks in favor of digital copies, which they can store on their e-readers and tablets. Many young people prefer digital textbooks to paper bound tomes because the former are cheaper, virtually weightless, and easy to store. Using tools in their e-readers or tablets, the students can quickly locate and bookmark specific information in their digital textbooks. They no lo
nger have to thumb through a hundred pages to find what they need. It is possible that within the next decade, a majority of U.S. students might not need backpacks at all.

3-D Printing Goes Mainstream

Low cost 3-D printer (1)

With a 3-D printer, an individual can draw a design on a computer screen, place plastic or some other type of malleable material into the machine, and watch as the 3-D printer translates the image into the actual object. Some companies are using 3-D printers to produce custom made devices, like hearing aids. Hobbyists use the printers to create small toys and sculptures. Currently, 3-D printers and their source materials are relatively expensive and their uses are limited. That situation might change dramatically over the next decade, as 3-D printers come down in price and become capable of creating a wider range of objects from scratch. As an example, some researchers believe that, within the next ten years, 3-D printers will be capable of creating ready-made human organs.

Techno Cars Arrive

While fully automated cars might not be on the horizon, most Americans who purchase new vehicles in the not too distant future will likely notice some significant changes. Some automobiles currently on the market can park themselves and automatically hit the brakes to avoid an accident. Over the next decade, many more vehicles will come equipped with these capabilities, as well as additional high tech safety features. These automobiles will likely have more powerful computers, and they might also contain consoles with Wi-Fi and 4G LTE capabilities. If nothing else, many of the new cars and trucks that roll off of the assembly line in the near future will almost certainly be more fuel efficient than current models.

Technology in a Pill

Several companies have either created or are in the process of designing devices that fit within a pill, which people can swallow. Some of these machines will monitor a person's health status or inform him or her when it is time to take medicine. Other ingestible devices will allow individuals to do things like access their laptops or phones without a password. A few of these tiny machines are on the marketplace already, and others are in the final stages of testing. If Americans become enamored with the new devices, the ingestible machine industry could become a big business within the next decade.

#technology #cable #tv #television #future #futurism #medicine #health #cars #autos #driving

(1) Deezmaker. (2012, April 13). A Low Cost Open Source 3D Printer. Wikimedia Commons.
            The photographer/owner has placed this image in the public domain per his/her comments on 
             Wikimedia (see link to photo in title).

-- Anthony Hopper

NFL and Safety (Concussions): My Thoughts

It seems that almost every article and radio comment about the NFL nowadays deals with some type of safety issue, ie. concussions, bounties, the intentional injuring of opposing players, etc.  However, it appears to me that most of these discussions, while interesting, only focus on a narrow topic, ie. are bounty systems ethical, should Kurt Warner have criticized the game that made him a star (courtesy of several discussions on ESPN radio), etc.  None of the ones that I have looked at focus on the larger topic of "The concussion issue aside, do football players have better/worse long-term health outlooks than the general population?"

I would break the topic down into 3 groups: 1) People who play football through high school
                                                                       2) People who play football through college
                                                                       3) People who play football professionally                                                                          

I would measure the health outcomes of these three groups against the health outcomes for the population in general.  I think this information is much more valuable to football players in particular and the general populace (eg. parents who are thinking about signing their kids up for little league football) than the hearsay, single person point of views that pervade the airwaves and newspapers.

For instance, if I had children (I do not), and was thinking about signing them up for little league football, I would be much more worried if Group #1 lives 5 years less than average or has 2X the chance of developing such and such conditions than I would be about one particular incident, which might not be reflective of the norm.  Ditto for the young men (and sometimes women) who are thinking about participating in high school, college, or professional football leagues.

As for the NFL, I think that it has an obligation to undertake these studies (at the professional level) if they have not been performed already.  If the NFL is reticent, then the NFLPA has an obligation to its player members to undertake these studies.  These organizations have a further obligation of giving the results to NFL prospects (and current players).  In other words, the NFLPA could say, "Okay, if you play football, you are 2X as likely to suffer from this disease, and 3X as likely to get this one, etc.  Oh, and by the way, some people might try to injure you on purpose."

Once the NFL and/or the NFLPA have given the information to the player, they have done their duty.  Players can decide for themselves whether the benefits are worth the risks.  Let's face it.  Everything we do in life carries some type of risk.  Most jobs in fact entail at least a minimal amount of risk.  Even a desk job comes with risks; if I sit in a chair and stare at a computer screen all day, I might be more prone to developing heart disease or other illnesses (as a result of a sedentary lifestyle).  As long as people are fully informed of the risks of a particular job, they should have the final say in whether they will perform that task.

Now of course, the company (or in this case the NFL), does have some obligation to look out for its employees.  Soldiers don't go into battle without helmets; workers don't go into hazardous areas without HAZMAT suits, and players should not get on the field unless they possess the latest in personal safety equipment.  Nonetheless, at some point, it is up to the player (or his/her parent) to make the final decision; it is up to them to decide if the risk is worth the reward.

As an aside, I apologize if this post meanders a bit.  I wanted to posit my true feelings on the issue.  So, what i have written comes off the top of my head; it is a reaction to what I've been hearing and reading.

Update: Thanks to Jax's blog, Raviolis & Waterworks, for pointing to this Fox Sports article by Alex Marvez discussing a NIOSH study of NFL players which shows that, on average, they live longer...The study might not cover all the bases, ie. compare players to other groups regarding non-life threatening diseases like arthritis; however, those studies are likely out there as well.

1st photo courtesy of Stephen Horncastle (photographer/owner) via Wikimedia Commons.  It is from geograph.org.uk and part of the public domain via a  Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 license.

(photographer/owner) via Wikimedia Commons.  The image shows Roger Goodell at the 2009 NFL Draft.  Ms. O'Leary has authorized re-use of the photo via a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

2nd photo courtesy of Marianne O'Leary (photographer/owner) via Wikimedia Commons.  The image shows Roger Goodell at the 2009 NFL Draft.  Ms. O'Leary has authorized re-use of the photo via a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

Why I Hope Genetic Testing Advances Rapidly

Like everyone else (or at least most everyone else), I hope that future advances in genetic testing will help us (and me) both to succeed in preventing diseases and to ameliorate or even cure illnesses when they do occur.  At some point in the future, I would love to be able to take a genetic test and not only learn whether or not I am more susceptible (than average) to getting certain conditions but also to determine whether a certain drug or neutriceutical will work for me.  Heck, I might even one day be able to use my genetic test to help me decide what foods to consume.  However, while I believe all of these (and perhaps other) potential health benefits are important, I am more excited about genetic testing's potential in helping me garner knowledge about my family's past.

To quote an oft used cliche, I have "often wondered where my family came from."  In this case, I am not referring to the last few generations of relatives, as I can trace their histories.  Rather, I am much more interested in determining where my family started out, in say 300 B.C. or even prior to that period, and what path their history took from that point.  I would be happy if I were able to look back a few centuries.  For instance, my paternal grandfather's family were Protestants (probably Anabaptists) who immigrated from German to the U.S. in the 1700s.  It would be nice to trace their ancestry further back.  Did my ancestors migrate from place to place in Germany to escape persecution?  Perhaps they moved from Switzerland or some other area of Europe in the 1500s or 1600s as a result of opportunities (the German population was decimated by the religious wars, especially the 30 Years War)?  It might be possible to answer some of these queries via traditional techniques (ie. looking in baptismal records); however, most of these questions are currently unanswerable.

Both of my grandparents on my mother's side of the family were Lebanese.  My grandmother was born shortly after her parents arrived in the U.S. and my grandfather immigrated to the U.S. when he was between 7 and 10 years old (he was not sure what his birth year was).  Both of their families lived in the mountains/hills surrounding Beruit.  They and their relatives differ from most of the other people living in Lebanon (or elsewhere in the Middle East) in that many of them possess blue eyes or very light brown eyes.  Additionally, they exhibit other features which do not appear to be common to people living in the region.  Perhaps some of my ancestors married Crusaders from Europe or the French (when they controlled the area) or some other visitor from Europe?  At the same time, is it possible that my ancestors migrated to Lebanon within the last few centuries from some other part of Europe/Asia where features like blue eyes are more common?  I would be interested in learning these answers.  I am unlikely to solve these conundrums using traditional methods.

I might be able to answer all of these questions and more if genetic testing comes of age.  I have read reports of research studies that used genetic tests to trace familial lineage to the first few centuries B.C. by analyzing the differences in gene sequences between individuals/families in different regions or via looking at changes in mitochondrial DNA.  Currently, companies like 23andMe can provide some, basic information about genealogy.  However, it will take a lot more work in this area to satisfy my desires.  For instance, researchers, DNA testing companies, and others would have to create massive genomic databases consisting of DNA from people living (and dead) in most regions of the world.  They would then have to isolate specific genes, gene signatures, etc.  However, I feel that these groups will eventually overcome the hurdles necessary to trace personal ancestry back centuries or even millenia.  When that day comes, I might be able to take a DNA test and the results will show that my paternal grandfather's family lived in area A in 500 B.C. and migrated to area B between 100-200 A.D. and then progressed to area C. sometime around 1500 A.D., etc.  That will be a great day!

Photos/Clip Art courtesy of Microsoft Office

The ACA Is Likely to Exacerbate the Trend towards Delayed Adulthood among 25 to 34 Year Olds

In looking back through some of my old papers, I noticed a faux press release that I created for one of my graduate classes.  Two caveats here: 1) this is not a real press release and 2) the statements in the release do not represent ad hoc thoughts but instead refer to carefully crafted/edited views.  Nonetheless, I think the document will provide readers with some valuable information or talking points.  If anyone is interested, I can post the full paper on here.

Contact: Anthony Hopper                                                                         For Release on 12/6/2010

Telephone: 434-249-2994

E-mail: amh42@georgetown.edu

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Is Likely to Exacerbate

the Trend towards Delayed Adulthood among 25 to 34 Year Olds

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will likely encourage the continuation of a trend, developing for several decades, in which the transition period between youth and adulthood is delayed until one’s late twenties or early thirties.  The issue brief explores this topic as it relates specifically to Americans between the ages of 25 and 34.  This research provides important information for policymakers as well as for the general public because it describes changes that will impact cherished cultural, economic, and social norms.

The Affordable Care Act contains two, key sections which are likely to encourage Americans, between the ages of 25 and 34, to delay transitioning from the protected, transient lifestyles that defined their teenage years and their early twenties.  One of these segments, “Title I,” contains language which reinforces the perception that many people in their late twenties are not ready for all of the cares and responsibilities that come with adulthood.  At the same time, its creation of state sponsored healthcare exchanges and its subsidization of the insurance coverage provided by these entities may attenuate the need for people, aged 25-34, to secure full-time, long-term employment or to marry. 

“Title V” of the Affordable Care Act will also likely have a significant influence on young Americans.  This section of the bill allocates money towards loan forgiveness programs, funds training for nurses, and sponsors other initiatives, which are designed both to increase the number of healthcare professionals and to improve the quality of this workforce.  These actions will likely encourage many people in their late twenties or early thirties either to stay in school longer or to return to college, thus further encouraging a trend towards older students which has been developing for the past few decades.

One task of this issue brief is to describe the ways in which these segments of the Affordable Care Act will help exacerbate a trend in which Americans, between the ages of 25 and 34, delay getting married, having children, seeking long-term employment, and taking on other responsibilities which are considered part of being an adult.  However, the paper will also briefly touch on some of the cultural, social, and economic changes that may result from the continuance of this trend, including adjustments in parents’ relationships with their adult children, changes in childrearing behaviors, and the redefinition of what it means to be an adult.  As such, it contains pertinent information for both legislators and the general public.  They can refer to the data in this document to help them understand policy related issues involving 25-34 year olds.

This press release has been created by Anthony Hopper to promote his upcoming issue brief.  Copies of this document will be available to the public on Friday, December 10.  Please contact Anthony Hopper on or after this date if you are interested in obtaining a facsimile of this paper.

Keeping 55 to 64 Year-Olds Healthy: A Significant Healthcare Challenge

An admission right from the start--this post will deviate from the norm in that it consists of a well-thought out, well documented entry. In other words, I spent some time pondering my subject, researching it, and editing my paper on it for content as well as for grammar.  With that said...In looking back over the papers I wrote while in graduate school, I came across one that might be useful to others.  I composed this essay for the National Capital Healthcare Executives' annual scholarship essay contest.  I am not sure who has the copyright to it, so I will posit a link to the document.  Feel free to read through the essay, entitled, "Keeping 55 to 64 Year-Olds Healthy: A Significant Healthcare Challenge."  Just click on the link below and it will take you to the paper.

http://nche.ache.org/documents/anthony_hopper.pdf

If you want more information on the National Capital Healthcare Executives, click on this link:

http://nche.ache.org/

Death Gives Meaning to Life?

A (very brief) synopsis of one of the thoughts/musings that has transcribed a path through my mind today.

Death Gives Meaning to Life?

I cannot count the times I have heard this phrase uttered by scholars and pundits, including Bill McKibben, Daniel Callahan, and Leon Kass (if anyone wants any references, I can find articles/books by these authors which refer to this issue).  They argue against pursuing radical life span extension because it will make life boring and/or meaningless by removing this tenet.  Is their hypothesis correct?

I am not sure that we can even radically extend human lifespans; I am highly skeptical that this phenomenon will occur in my lifetime.  Regardless, I do not think that human beings' lives will suddenly be bereft of meaning if their maximum lifespans increased from the current 90-120 years to centuries.  People will simply set artificial deadlines and use these limits to guide their behaviors and decisions.  We already do it now.  How many times have we heard someone say, "I want to achieve these goals by the time I'm..." 20 or 30 or 40 (or whatever age)?  Their timetable may or may not be dependent on aging; however, it is unlikely due to any worries about dying (especially for people in their teens and twenties who utter these pronouncements).

I'm sure that some proponents of radical lifespan extension or perhaps even some detractors have noted this fact; however, I can't think of anyone who has broached this hypothesis off-hand.  If readers can think of anyone who has proposed this view, let me know.