The Illinois Health and Hospital Association, the Association of Safety Net Community Hospitals and the Illinois Critical Access Hospital Network issued a statement saying they strongly oppose HB 3512.
by Grace Friedman Medill Illinois News Bureau, Capitol News Illinois
SPRINGFIELD — Health care unions continue to rally for legislation to address understaffing they say strains hospitals and threatens both patient safety and staff well-being.
Lawmakers are considering the Hospital Worker Staff and Safety bill, which would establish mandatory nurse-to-patient staffing ratios and increase support for underfunded hospitals.
The proposed legislation, Senate Bill 21 and House Bill 3512, aims to establish minimum staffing ratios in hospitals and fund critical safety-net hospitals across the state. Advocates with health care worker unions have been holding a series of rallies at the Capitol in support of the legislation in recent weeks.
“Our hospitals are staffed unsafely,” Kawana Gant, a certified nursing assistant at UChicago Medicine Ingalls Memorial Hospital in Harvey, said at a recent Statehouse rally. “I have worked short shifts where there are 30 patients and only one CNA on the floor. How can you give quality care? It is not safe.”
Gant, who has worked at Ingalls Hospital for nearly 30 years, says she has watched many of her colleagues quit due to the mental and physical toll the short staffing has had on their bodies.
“This is an opportunity for legislators to hear us, to know that these hospitals are not safe.” Gant said.
But similar versions of the proposed legislation have been introduced at the Statehouse for recent years and have failed to gain traction. Generally backed by unions representing nurses, such as the Service Employees International Union, previous staffing ratio measures have run into opposition from hospital groups that say they’re unworkable.
The proposed legislation filed this year has yet to receive a hearing in a substantive committee, meaning it will be an uphill battle for it to move by the time the legislature adjourns at the end of the month.
Like previous versions, it would mandate that hospitals “employ and schedule sufficient staff to ensure quality patient care and safety.” In addition, hospitals would have to share annual staffing metrics with the Illinois Department of Public Health to help ensure they are at proper staffing levels.
“This bill gives you a real voice,” Rep. Kam Buckner, D-Chicago, said to rallygoers. “It gives you a way to speak up when things are unsafe for you and the people who you care for.”
However, not all lawmakers are convinced that now is the right time to implement staffing ratios.
“You can mandate the staffing ratios, but if those professionals don’t exist, what have you really done?” said Rep. Norine Hammond, R-Macomb. “We’ve been trying for years to get more people into the health care field, especially after COVID, and we’re just not there yet.”
Hammond expressed concern that enforcing strict staffing requirements without enough qualified workers in the pipeline could place unrealistic burdens on hospitals. She warned that such mandates might unintentionally strain facilities already struggling with labor shortages and lead to adverse financial consequences, especially for smaller or rural hospitals.
Hospital trade groups echo those concerns, calling the legislation unworkable, burdensome and an ineffective way to solve a problem that should be addressed by the specific needs of each hospital or care center. The Illinois Health and Hospital Association, the Association of Safety Net Community Hospitals and the Illinois Critical Access Hospital Network issued a statement saying they strongly oppose HB 3512.
They said it was introduced “as a backdoor effort pushed by organized labor to impose unworkable, government-imposed health care staffing ratios in Illinois.”
“This proposal would relegate the essential, complex and nuanced protocols established to safely and efficiently staff a hospital 24/7/365, to a series of burdensome forms and onerous paperwork that hospitals would be required to submit to the (IDPH) to establish minimum staffing standards for every hospital worker, in each hospital unit,” the groups said in the statement.
Still, according to a recent Service Employees International Union survey of Chicago area hospital workers, 70% of respondents reported understaffing, and over 25% reported unsafe or unmanageable workloads. Additionally, in the same survey, 47% of the respondents stated an intent to leave their jobs soon.
To help enforce safety standards, the legislation introduces “assignment despite objection forms” that give hospital workers the opportunity to document and report any assignments that they believe are unsafe. Hospitals are then required to provide this information to IDPH, which would have to publish an annual report on all these staffing metrics. The legislation would also require IDPH to “make recommendations for minimum staffing standards for hospital workers in each hospital unit.”
In addition to protecting staff, advocates said this bill would allocate proper essential resources to underfunded hospitals around the state, including Mount Sinai Hospital on Chicago's West Side, a Level 1 trauma center that helps underserved and violence-impacted communities.
“Mount Sinai saved my son's life,” said Sonya Brown, who traveled from Chicago to Springfield recently to advocate for the safety-net hospital that treated her son after he was shot seven times in 2020.
“He was shot in the head, he was shot in the neck, he was shot in the chest, the abdomen and shoulder, and the arm,” Brown said. “If they wouldn't have gotten to him in time, he would have died.”
Mount Sinai serves as a health care provider for communities on both the South and West sides of Chicago, areas that experience some of Chicago's highest rates of gun violence. If the hospitals are not protected by measures in this legislation, advocates said, the victims in these neighborhoods risk longer travel times to alternative trauma centers.
They said the bills would help allocate essential resources and enforce staffing standards at safety-net hospitals to continue effectively serving vulnerable communities.
“All of our staff is overworked,” said Jessica Mendoza, a nursing assistant at Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital in Hines. “A lot of our veterans are coming into the VA to get help with their health, but we do not have the staff to provide it.”
Mendoza, who has worked at the Hines VA Hospital for nearly two years, said that due to the low number of staff, they rarely get a break. She noted that the lack of sufficient staffing makes it difficult to provide the level of care that the veterans need.
The health care workers and advocates gathering in Springfield at the recent rally emphasized that without sufficient staffing and resources, the quality of patient care throughout Illinois hospitals will continue declining, and worker burnout will escalate.
“They expect you to do the job of five or six people but pay you for one.” Sen. Lakesia Collins, D-Chicago, said at the rally. Prior to joining the General Assembly, Collins was a CNA in nursing homes.
As the legislation stagnates at the Capitol, hospital workers and advocates said they plan to keep organizing and sharing their stories. They said they're calling on lawmakers to prioritize frontline health care workers and the patients who depend on them.
Grace Friedman is a student in the Medill Illinois News Bureau, a program at the Medill School of Journalism that provides local news outlets with state legislature and government coverage. She can be reached at gracefriedman2025@u.northwestern.edu.
Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.
CHICAGO - The federal government is launching a new program to help hospitals struggling to stay afloat in rural Illinois.
Severe financial problems have put 360 rural hospitals nationwide at immediate risk of closing. Fifteen rural Illinois hospitals have closed since 2015, according to a Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform report.
Rural hospital closures can negatively affect the nation's food supply and energy production
The National Rural Health Resource Center is launching the federal Rural Hospital Stabilization pilot program to prevent further closings.
Alyssa Meller, chief operating officer of the pilot program, outlined its objectives.
"It is a program that's aiming to improve the health care in rural communities by really helping keep health care services available locally to increase patient volume and improve revenue," Meller explained.
The report showed rural hospital closures can negatively affect the nation's food supply and energy production. Farms and solar energy facilities are located mostly in rural areas. Those without health care facilities have a hard time attracting and retaining workers.
Meller noted several things contribute to hospitals' financial woes, including people bypassing local services and going elsewhere, fixed costs exceeding reimbursement rates from Medicare and Medicaid, and a lack of services tailored to meet community needs.
"This program then will help stabilize their current service line but also will help them dive into what is needed at that local level and provide technical assistance and support," Meller added.
The report indicated of Illinois's 74 rural hospitals, 10 are at risk of closing, and six are at immediate risk of closing. Meller said the program will also help engage the hospitals' communities to promote services. The application period ends Jan. 15.
StatePoint - Weight-loss drugs have skyrocketed in popularity because of their quick results and use among celebrities and influencers. J.P. Morgan predicts that by 2030, 30 million Americans will use them.
However, some medical providers say the drugs’ hidden health risks may not be worth their benefits.
“Weight loss is so often prescribed to improve health,” said Dr. Cesar Lara, a board-certified medical bariatric physician. “The irony is that many of today’s weight-loss medications bring forth their own set of serious risk factors.”
Hidden risks
A growing number of weight-loss drug users report side effects including nausea, vomiting, tachycardia, fatigue, depression and suicidal ideation.
And because these drugs are relatively new for weight-loss purposes, questions linger about their long-term impacts.
Lara said patients considering the drugs should know their potential side effects and alternative options.
“I would advise any patient of mine who needs or desires to lose weight to investigate safe options, like low-level lasers, and to understand the risks of taking medications that could potentially compromise their health,” Lara said.
Safer alternatives
Low-level lasers are a non-invasive, pain-free option for people seeking safer weight-loss treatment.
For example, the Emerald Laser, an FDA-cleared low-level laser for fat loss and body contouring, is additionally FDA-cleared for treating obesity, making it a good choice for those with a lot of weight to lose. The Zerona, also an FDA-cleared low-level laser for fat loss and body contouring, has over-the-counter clearance for overall body circumference reduction, providing a way to quickly target stubborn areas of fat.
Both lasers create temporary tiny pores in fatty cells to release fat, which the body’s lymphatic system naturally removes. Ultimately, the lasers shrink fat cells without damaging them.
This controlled approach helps ensure optimal results in target areas such as the waist, chest or back and requires no recovery time.
Unlike many other weight-loss treatments, lasers do not elevate plasma lipids, triglycerides or cholesterol. They also don’t cause bruising or swelling.
Fat-loss laser treatments are often available at doctors’ offices, chiropractors, spas, health centers and fitness centers. To find a location near you or to offer a laser service at your business, visit fatlosslasers.com.
When considering your weight-loss options, prioritize safe, non-invasive treatments with no side effects.
CHAMPAIGN - Champaign-Urbana Public Health District will distribute free NARCAN® kits at a drive-thru event on August 30, 2024, from 8:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. as part of their recognition of International Overdose Awareness Day on August 31. The campaign's goal is to honor the many lives lost to drug overdose by raising awareness about the opioid crisis. CUPHD hopes that by distributing NARCAN® (naloxone) to community members, it will empower and help residents mitigate the impacts of this crisis.
NARCAN®, also known as naloxone, is a medication that can reverse the effects of an opioid overdose. It works by binding to the opiate receptors in the brain and blocking the effects of opioids, allowing the individual to restore normal breathing and potentially save their life. NARCAN® is safe to use on someone who is unconscious, making it a crucial tool in overdose response. If a person is administered NARCAN® and is not overdosing on opioids, they will not be harmed.
Last year, CUPHD distributed 440 kits.
Kits can be obtained by driving to the south side of the CUPHD building located at 201 West Kenyon Road in Champaign. Look for the small shed where staff will be on hand to provide kits and answer questions.
The CUPHD states that opioid overdoses are a serious public health concern. "It is vital to take every opportunity to raise awareness, provide resources, and support those affected by this crisis," the health district said in announcing the upcoming drive. "Participating in initiatives like the NARCAN® distribution drive on International Overdose Awareness Day can save lives and foster a safer and healthier community."
CDC data shows that overdose deaths involving opioids decreased from an estimated 84,181 in 2022 to 81,083 in 2023. Scientists agree that the opioid epidemic started in the late 1990s when opioids were prescribed freely by doctors without concern for their addictive nature. The crisis skyrocketed due to the proliferation of illegal opioids like heroin and synthetic opioids such as fentanyl alongside the already overprescribed volume available in communities nationwide.
By distributing NARCAN® kits for free, CUPHD equips the community with the knowledge and tools needed to respond effectively to opioid overdoses, ensuring that individuals are well-informed, capable advocates who can raise awareness about opioid overdose prevention.
Plastic surgery should always be performed by board certified plastic and reconstructive surgeons. You should also check to see that the surgical facility is accredited, too.
Photo: Pixabay
StatePoint Media - In the pursuit of beauty and self-enhancement, an increasing number of individuals are turning to plastic surgery.
However, beneath the promise of transformation lies a darker reality: the alarming rise of botched plastic surgeries due to an influx of undertrained, completely untrained, or reckless surgeries, most commonly undertaken by non-plastic surgeons.
“The consequences of choosing the wrong provider can be catastrophic,” says Dr. Alan Durkin, double board-certified plastic and reconstructive surgeon, Ocean Drive Plastic Surgery. “The risks associated with botched plastic surgeries are not just physical; they extend to emotional and financial repercussions.”
According to Dr. Durkin, patients who undergo procedures under the care of inexperienced practitioners face the following risks:
Physical Harm: Complications such as infections, scarring, nerve damage, and anesthesia-related issues can result from poorly executed surgeries.
Emotional Toll: Dealing with unexpected outcomes can lead to depression, anxiety, and a loss of self-esteem, reversing the procedure’s intended benefits.
Financial Burden: Correcting botched surgeries often requires additional procedures and expenses that may not be covered by insurance, leading to significant financial strain.
Choosing a Safe Practitioner
Amidst the risks, there are crucial steps you can take to mitigate them and ensure a safe cosmetic surgery experience. Dr. Durkin provides these factors to consider when selecting a practitioner:
1. Credentials and Accreditation
Plastic surgery should be undertaken by board certified plastic and reconstructive surgeons. Verify that your surgeon is board-certified by accredited organizations such as the American Board of Plastic Surgery or the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Certification ensures that the surgeon has undergone at least six years of rigorous training and meets high standards of competency and ethics. Dual board certification offers an even greater degree of safety, but those practitioners are not in every market.
2. Experience and Expertise
Research the surgeon's experience performing the procedure you're considering. Experienced surgeons possess technical skill and a track record of successful outcomes and patient satisfaction. Ask about their specialization within plastic surgery and inquire about their frequency of performing the procedure. Further, ensure that your physician has hospital privileges for backup resources and that they carry malpractice insurance. It’s a big red flag to provide aesthetic procedures without malpractice insurance.
3. Facility Accreditation
Ensure your surgical facility is accredited by recognized organizations like the AAAASF, State Certification, Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care or the Joint Commission. Accredited facilities adhere to strict safety standards and protocols, reducing complication risk during and after surgery. Most higher-end facilities, similar to hospitals, offer dual facility certification.
4. Patient Reviews and Testimonials
Read reviews. Websites like Google, US News and World Report and Healthgrades provide valuable insights into patient feedback, outcomes, and overall satisfaction with the surgeon and their practice.
5. Consultation and Communication
Schedule a consultation to discuss your goals, expectations and concerns. A reputable surgeon will take the time to thoroughly assess your candidacy for surgery, explain the procedure in detail, and address all your questions regarding risks, recovery and expected outcomes. Also interview the staff. Make sure you are comfortable with the process and personnel at your facility of choice.
6. Transparency and Red Flags
Red flags include discounted prices that seem too good to be true, pressure to undergo multiple procedures simultaneously, and promises of unrealistic results. A trustworthy surgeon prioritizes safety and provides transparent information about potential risks and limitations. Beware of clinics that do not provide adequate information about your procedure.
Legislative and Regulatory Measures
In response to the rise in botched plastic surgeries, legislative efforts are underway to enhance patient protections and regulate the industry more effectively. Initiatives like Senate Bill 1188 aim to strengthen oversight and ensure that only qualified professionals perform cosmetic procedures, protecting patients from harm and exploitation.
“Choosing to undergo plastic surgery is a personal decision that should be approached with careful consideration and thorough research. By educating yourself about the risks, selecting a qualified practitioner, and advocating for stronger regulations, you can achieve safer, more satisfying outcomes,” says Dr. Durkin.
While admitting that Medicare and Medicaid “help many,” the authors of Project 2025 nonetheless declare that the programs “operate as runaway entitlements that stifle medical innovation,
by Sonali KolhatkarConservatives have done the United States a huge favor by explaining in detail what they’ll try to do if Donald Trump is reelected.
Project 2025, a “presidential transition project” of the Heritage Foundation, helpfully lays out how a group of former Trump officials would like to transform the country into a right-wing dystopia where the rich thrive and the rest of us die aspiring to be rich.
Declaring in its Mandate for Leadership that “unaccountable federal spending is the secret lifeblood of the Great Awokening” (really!), the plan focuses heavily on reversing social progress on the rights of racial and sexual minorities.
It also promises to decimate the most popular benefits programs in the U.S.: Medicare and Medicaid.
In a section dedicated to the Department of Health and Human Services, Project 2025 declares that “HHS is home to Medicare and Medicaid, the principal drivers of our $31 trillion national debt.”
This is a popular conservative framing used to justify ending social programs. In fact, per person Medicare spending has plateaued for more than a decade and represents one of the greatest reductions to the federal debt.
While admitting that Medicare and Medicaid “help many,” the authors of Project 2025 nonetheless declare that the programs “operate as runaway entitlements that stifle medical innovation, encourage fraud, and impede cost containment, in addition to which their fiscal future is in peril.”
To solve these imaginary problems, they suggest making “Medicare Advantage the default enrollment option” rather than traditional Medicare.
But Medicare Advantage (MA) is not a government-run healthcare program. It’s merely a way to turn tax dollars into profits for private health insurers. The more that MA providers deny coverage, the more money their shareholders make. There is no incentive for them to cover the health care needs of seniors.
There is plenty of evidence that MA programs not only fleece taxpayers by submitting inflated reimbursement bills to the government but also routinely deny necessary medical coverage.
In other words, they’re drinking out of both sides of the government trough.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research pointed out in a March 2024 paper that the “insurance companies that run these MA plans spend significant sums of money to blanket seniors with marketing” while relying on “heavily restricted networks that damage one’s choice of provider along with dangerous delays and denials of necessary care.”
But Project 2025 claims, without evidence, that “the MA program has been registering consistently high marks for superior performance in delivering high-quality care.”
Medicaid, the government program that covers health care for the lowest-income Americans, including millions of children, is also a major target of the conservative authors.
They want to add work requirements to the benefit, adopting the familiar conservative trope of low-income Americans living off tax dollars because they’re too lazy to work. And like the MA programs, they want to allow private insurers to get in on the game.
Calling Medicaid a “cumbersome, complicated, and unaffordable burden on nearly every state,” Project 2025 complains about the program’s increased eligibility while at the same time claiming to care about how it impacts “those who are most in need.”
But a June 2024 report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concludes that Medicaid’s expanded eligibility rules have helped insure millions of Americans who would otherwise be uninsured and saved money in state budgets.
Most encouragingly, “the people who gained coverage have grown healthier and more financially secure, while long-standing racial inequities in health outcomes, coverage, and access to care have shrunk.”
Project 2025 claims to have the underlying ideology to “incentivize personal responsibility,” as if its authors simply want Americans to begin acting like responsible grownups. But they mysteriously don’t apply this same standard to wealthy elites — perhaps because that’s precisely who they are.
Sonali Kolhatkar is the host of “Rising Up With Sonali,” a television and radio show on Free Speech TV and Pacifica stations. This commentary was produced by the Economy for All project at the Independent Media Institute and adapted for syndication by OtherWords.org.
Researchers looked at the frequency of serious bleeding among hundreds of thousands of stroke survivors who took different types of SSRI and/or SNRI antidepressants.
DALLAS — Most stroke survivors were able to safely take two types of common antidepressants, according to a preliminary study to be presented at the American Stroke Association’s International Stroke Conference 2024. The meeting will be held in Phoenix, Feb. 7-9, and is a world premier meeting for researchers and clinicians dedicated to the science of stroke and brain health.
Among people with ischemic (clot-caused) stroke, those who began taking an antidepressant known as an SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) and/or an SNRI (serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor) for the common conditions of post-stroke depression and anxiety, did not have an increased risk of hemorrhagic (bleeds) stroke or other serious bleeding. This included people taking anticoagulation medications. There was, however, an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke among stroke patients taking two anti-platelet medications, also called dual anti-platelet therapy or DAPT.
“Mental health conditions, such as depression and anxiety, are very common yet treatable conditions that may develop after a stroke. Our results should reassure clinicians that for most stroke survivors, it is safe to prescribe SSRI and/or SNRI antidepressants early after stroke to treat post-stroke depression and anxiety, which may help optimize their patients’ recovery,” said study lead author Kent P. Simmonds, D.O., Ph.D., a third-year physical medicine and rehabilitation resident at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. “However, caution is needed when considering the risk-benefit profile for stroke patients receiving dual anti-platelet therapy because we did find an increased risk of bleeding among this group.”
According to the American Heart Association’s Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics 2024 Update, when considered separately from other cardiovascular diseases, stroke ranks fifth among all causes of death, behind diseases of the heart, cancer, COVID-19 and unintentional injuries/accidents. Approximately one-third of stroke survivors develop poststroke depression. If left untreated, depression may affect quality of life and reduce the chances for optimal poststroke recovery such as returning to their usual daily living activities without assistance.
The most common classes of antidepressants are SSRIs or SNRIs, and they are widely used and effective for treating anxiety and depression. However, they may not be prescribed at all or early enough after a stroke, when the risk of depression or anxiety is particularly high, due to concerns that they may increase the risk of a hemorrhagic stroke or other serious types of bleeding.
Researchers looked at the frequency of serious bleeding among hundreds of thousands of stroke survivors who took different types of SSRI and/or SNRI antidepressants (such as sertraline, fluoxetine, citalopram, venlalfaxine). Serious bleeding was defined as bleeding in the brain, digestive tract; and shock, which occurs when bleeding prevents blood from reaching the body’s tissues.
Researchers also investigated serious bleeding among stroke survivors who took antidepressants combined with different types of blood-thinning medications that are used to prevent future blood clots. These blood-thinning medications may include either anticoagulants or antiplatelet medications. Anticoagulants are prescribed as a single medication and include medications such as warfarin, apixaban and rivaroxaban. Antiplatelet medications may be prescribed as either a single medication (commonly aspirin) or two types of antiplatelet medications can be used in dual antiplatelet therapy. DAPT includes aspirin plus another antiplatelet medication called a P2Y12 inhibitor (such as clopidogrel, prasugrel or ticagrelor).
The study found:
SSRI and SNRIs were generally safe to start during the important early stages of recovery as patients taking these medications were not more likely to develop serious bleeding compared to stroke survivors who did not take an antidepressant. This included ischemic stroke patients who are also taking anti-coagulation therapy.
An increased risk of serious bleeding occurred when SSRIs or SNRIs were taken in combination with DAPT treatments (aspirin and blood thinners). However, the overall risk remained low as serious bleeding events were rare.
Among ischemic stroke patients on antidepressant medications, there was a 15% increase in the risk of serious bleeding when taking medications from classes such as mirtazapine, bupropion and tricyclics compared to SSRI/SNRIs.
BPT - If you are one of the more than 35 million Americans who are estimated to have obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), you already know how disruptive it can be to your life. While OSA is one of the most common and serious sleep disorders, the condition is widely under-diagnosed, so the number of affected Americans may be far greater.
What is obstructive sleep apnea?
OSA occurs when the muscles in the throat relax during sleep, blocking normal breathing. This can lead to low levels of oxygen in your blood while you sleep and result in poor sleep, fatigue and sleepiness that can negatively impact quality of life for many. In the long term, OSA has also been shown to contribute to high blood pressure, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and stroke.
Most people diagnosed with OSA are prescribed positive air pressure therapy devices such as continuous positive airway pressure, or CPAP, which can work very well in helping people receive the oxygen they need while they are sleeping. However, because many have difficulty using or tolerating these devices, a significant percentage of the population with OSA remains untreated, undertreated and at risk.
A new option for treating obstructive sleep apnea
Apnimed is a pharmaceutical company working to change the way OSA is treated. The company recently completed a large Phase 2b clinical trial, called MARIPOSA, to study AD109 (an investigational medication which is a single pill taken at bedtime) as a possible treatment for obstructive sleep apnea.
AD109 has the potential to be the first oral medication that treats both the underlying cause of OSA - airway obstruction at night - and improve the daytime symptoms of OSA, such as fatigue. It is designed to treat people with OSA from mild to severe.
Many patients with OSA are unable to adequately treat their condition with existing options, and the team at Apnimed is driven to find new solutions for patients and their doctors to overcome these barriers to treatment. The success of this effort is largely dependent on the dedicated work done by patients and doctors in the community who take part in clinical research.
"MARIPOSA results showed that AD109 improved daytime fatigue, which is an often debilitating effect of poor sleep due to OSA," said Paula Schweitzer, Ph.D., an investigator in the MARIPOSA trial and director of research at St. Luke's Sleep Medicine and Research Center, Chesterfield, Missouri. "For those who cannot tolerate current treatments, AD109 has the potential to be a convenient oral pill that could improve people's quality of life at night and during the daytime as well."
Learn about enrolling in the clinical trial
With the promising results from the MARIPOSA study, a new study is now available for people with OSA.
If you or a loved one has obstructive sleep apnea and you are unable to successfully use or tolerate treatment with a CPAP machine, you could be eligible to enroll in a six-month clinical trial called SynAIRgy.
To learn more about the clinical trial and to enroll, visit: www.SynAIRgyStudy.com.
CHICAGO - At the stroke of midnight on New Year's Eve, Illinoisans will see more than 300 new laws take effect - with changes that impact the state's healthcare, public safety and employment sectors.
Photo: Tim Zänkert/Unsplash
The Paid Leave for All Workers Act will require most employers to provide their workers with at least 40 hours of annual paid leave. And minimum wages will increase from $13 to $14 per hour.
Illinois Legal Aid Online offers online support for some of the state's underserved residents. Executive Director Teri Ross said she understands many will want to know how the new laws affect them.
"We take the legislation, which is often difficult to read and somewhat opaque, and we translate that into a plain language explanation," said Ross, "and in some cases, into some tools that people can use to assert their rights and to understand their rights."
Under a new Telehealth Services law, Illinois mental-health and substance-use patients will continue to receive telehealth coverage for treatment.
And a patient's medical care cannot be delayed while a hospital staffer verifies their payment method or insurance status.
Ross said hospitals will also be required to screen uninsured or underinsured patients for public financial assistance eligibility before their bill is sent to collections.
Another new law on the books has stirred up concerns about immigrants applying for jobs in public safety.
It allows a person who is not a citizen - but is legally authorized to work in the U.S. - to apply to become an Illinois police officer.
Ross said low numbers on police forces are due to veteran officers retiring and a lack of new applicants - and claimed policing overall needs to change.
"One of the problems that we have, in our society generally," said Ross, "is that law enforcement has been focused on communities of color, and is often not made up of people who are of color."
Applicants who are non-citizens and possess a green card that allows them to live and work in the U.S. must be authorized under federal law to obtain, carry, purchase or otherwise possess a firearm.
The financial and emotional toll of providing and paying for long-term care is wreaking havoc on the lives of millions of Americans.
by Reed Abelson, The New York Times Jordan Rau, KFF Health New
Kaiser Health News - Margaret Newcomb, 69, a retired French teacher, is desperately trying to protect her retirement savings by caring for her 82-year-old husband, who has severe dementia, at home in Seattle. She used to fear his disease-induced paranoia, but now he’s so frail and confused that he wanders away with no idea of how to find his way home. He gets lost so often that she attaches a tag to his shoelace with her phone number.
The financial and emotional toll of providing and paying for long-term care is wreaking havoc on the lives of millions of Americans. Read about how a few families are navigating the challenges, in their own words. (Read More)
Feylyn Lewis, 35, sacrificed a promising career as a research director in England to return home to Nashville after her mother had a debilitating stroke. They ran up $15,000 in medical and credit card debt while she took on the role of caretaker.
Sheila Littleton, 30, brought her grandfather with dementia to her family home in Houston, then spent months fruitlessly trying to place him in a nursing home with Medicaid coverage. She eventually abandoned him at a psychiatric hospital to force the system to act.
“That was terrible,” she said. “I had to do it.”
Millions of families are facing such daunting life choices — and potential financial ruin — as the escalating costs of in-home care, assisted living facilities, and nursing homes devour the savings and incomes of older Americans and their relatives.
“People are exposed to the possibility of depleting almost all their wealth,” said Richard Johnson, director of the program on retirement policy at the Urban Institute.
The prospect of dying broke looms as an imminent threat for the boomer generation, which vastly expanded the middle class and looked hopefully toward a comfortable retirement on the backbone of 401(k)s and pensions. Roughly 10,000 of them will turn 65 every day until 2030, expecting to live into their 80s and 90s as the price tag for long-term care explodes, outpacing inflation and reaching a half-trillion dollars a year, according to federal researchers.
By 2050, there will be more than 86 million Americans over the age of 65. The U.S. does not dedicate enough funds for long-term care of the aging population. For the most, the financial burden is left on the shoulders of the senior and their financial resources or that of the family.
Photo: Spolyakov/PEXELS
The challenges will only grow. By 2050, the population of Americans 65 and older is projected to increase by more than 50%, to 86 million, according to census estimates. The number of people 85 or older will nearly triple to 19 million.
The United States has no coherent system of long-term care, mostly a patchwork. The private market, where a minuscule portion of families buy long-term care insurance, has shriveled, reduced over years of giant rate hikes by insurers that had underestimated how much care people would actually use. Labor shortages have left families searching for workers willing to care for their elders in the home. And the cost of a spot in an assisted living facility has soared to an unaffordable level for most middle-class Americans. They have to run out of money to qualify for nursing home care paid for by the government.
For an examination of the crisis in long-term care, The New York Times and KFF Health News interviewed families across the nation as they struggled to obtain care; examined companies that provide it; and analyzed data from the federally funded Health and Retirement Study, the most authoritative national survey of older people about their long-term care needs and financial resources.
About 8 million people 65 and older reported that they had dementia or difficulty with basic daily tasks like bathing and feeding themselves — and nearly 3 million of them had no assistance at all, according to an analysis of the survey data. Most people relied on spouses, children, grandchildren, or friends.
The United States devotes a smaller share of its gross domestic product to long-term care than do most other wealthy countries, including Britain, France, Canada, Germany, Sweden, and Japan, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The United States lags its international peers in another way: It dedicates far less of its overall health spending toward long-term care.
“We just don’t value elders the way that other countries and other cultures do,” said Rachel Werner, executive director of the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics at the University of Pennsylvania. “We don’t have a financing and insurance system for long-term care,” she said. “There isn’t the political will to spend that much money.”
Most countries spend more than the United States on care, but middle-class and affluent people still bear a substantial portion of the costs. (Read More)
Despite medical advances that have added years to the average life span and allowed people to survive decades more after getting cancer or suffering from heart disease or strokes, federal long-term care for older people has not fundamentally changed in the decades since President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law in 1965. From 1960 to 2021, the number of Americans age 85 and older increased at more than six times the rate of the general population, according to census records.
Medicare, the federal health insurance program for Americans 65 and older, covers the costs of medical care, but generally pays for a home aide or a stay in a nursing home only for a limited time during a recovery from a surgery or a fall or for short-term rehabilitation.
Medicaid, the federal-state program, covers long-term care, usually in a nursing home, but only for the poor. Middle-class people must exhaust their assets to qualify, forcing them to sell much of their property and to empty their bank accounts. If they go into a nursing home, they are permitted to keep a pittance of their retirement income: $50 or less a month in a majority of states. And spouses can hold onto only a modest amount of income and assets, often leaving their children and grandchildren to shoulder some of the financial burden.
At any given time, skilled nursing homes house roughly 630,000 older residents whose average age is about 77.
“You basically want people to destitute themselves and then you take everything else that they have,” said Gay Glenn, whose mother lived in a nursing home in Kansas until she died in October at age 96.
Her mother, Betty Mae Glenn, had to spend down her savings, paying the home more than $10,000 a month, until she qualified for Medicaid. Glenn, 61, relocated from Chicago to Topeka more than four years ago, moving into one of her mother’s two rental properties and overseeing her care and finances.
Under the state Medicaid program’s byzantine rules, she had to pay rent to her mother, and that income went toward her mother’s care. Glenn sold the family’s house just before her mother’s death in October. Her lawyer told her the estate had to pay Medicaid back about $20,000 from the proceeds.
A play she wrote about her relationship with her mother, titled “If You See Panic in My Eyes,” was read this year at a theater festival.
At any given time, skilled nursing homes house roughly 630,000 older residents whose average age is about 77, according to recent estimates. A long-term resident’s care can easily cost more than $100,000 a year without Medicaid coverage at these institutions, which are supposed to provide round-the-clock nursing coverage.
Nine in 10 people said it would be impossible or very difficult to pay that much, according to a KFF public opinion poll conducted during the pandemic.
Efforts to create a national long-term care system have repeatedly collapsed. Democrats have argued that the federal government needs to take a much stronger hand in subsidizing care. The Biden administration sought to improve wages and working conditions for paid caregivers. But a $150 billion proposal in the Build Back Better Act for in-home and community-based services under Medicaid was dropped to lower the price tag of the final legislation.
“This is an issue that’s coming to the front door of members of Congress,” said Sen. Bob Casey, a Pennsylvania Democrat and chair of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. “No matter where you’re representing — if you’re representing a blue state or red state — families are not going to settle for just having one option,” he said, referring to nursing homes funded under Medicaid. “The federal government has got to do its part, which it hasn’t.”
But leading Republicans in Congress say the federal government cannot be expected to step in more than it already does. Americans need to save for when they will inevitably need care, said Sen. Mike Braun of Indiana, the ranking Republican on the aging committee.
“So often people just think it’s just going to work out,” he said. “Too many people get to the point where they’re 65 and then say, ‘I don’t have that much there.’”
Private Companies’ Prices Have Skyrocketed
The boomer generation is jogging and cycling into retirement, equipped with hip and knee replacements that have slowed their aging. And they are loath to enter the institutional setting of a nursing home.
But they face major expenses for the in-between years: falling along a spectrum between good health and needing round-the-clock care in a nursing home.
That has led them to assisted living centers run by for-profit companies and private equity funds enjoying robust profits in this growing market. Some 850,000 people age 65 or older now live in these facilities that are largely ineligible for federal funds and run the gamut, with some providing only basics like help getting dressed and taking medication and others offering luxury amenities like day trips, gourmet meals, yoga, and spas.
The bills can be staggering.
As Americans live longer, the number who develop dementia, a condition of aging, has soared, as have their needs.
Half of the nation’s assisted living facilities cost at least $54,000 a year, according to Genworth, a long-term care insurer. That rises substantially in many metropolitan areas with lofty real estate prices. Specialized settings, like locked memory care units for those with dementia, can cost twice as much.
Home care is costly, too. Agencies charge about $27 an hour for a home health aide, according to Genworth. Hiring someone who spends six or seven hours a day cleaning and helping an older person get out of bed or take medications can add up to $60,000 a year.
As Americans live longer, the number who develop dementia, a condition of aging, has soared, as have their needs. Five million to 7 million Americans age 65 and up have dementia, and their ranks are projected to grow to nearly 12 million by 2040. The condition robs people of their memories, mars the ability to speak and understand, and can alter their personalities.
In Seattle, Margaret and Tim Newcomb sleep on separate floors of their two-story cottage, with Margaret ever mindful that her husband, who has dementia, can hallucinate and become aggressive if medication fails to tame his symptoms.
“The anger has diminished from the early days,” she said last year.
But earlier on, she had resorted to calling the police when he acted erratically.
“He was hating me and angry, and I didn’t feel safe,” she said.
She considered memory care units, but the least expensive option cost around $8,000 a month and some could reach nearly twice that amount. The couple’s monthly income, with his pension from Seattle City Light, the utility company, and their combined Social Security, is $6,000.
Placing her husband in such a place would have gutted the $500,000 they had saved before she retired from 35 years teaching art and French at a parochial school.
“I’ll let go of everything if I have to, but it’s a very unfair system,” she said. “If you didn’t see ahead or didn’t have the right type of job that provides for you, it’s tough luck.”
In the last year, medication has quelled Tim’s anger, but his health has declined so much that he no longer poses a physical threat. Margaret said she’s reconciled to caring for him as long as she can.
“When I see him sitting out on the porch and appreciating the sun coming on his face, it’s really sweet,” she said.
The financial threat posed by dementia also weighs heavily on adult children who have become guardians of aged parents and have watched their slow, expensive declines.
Claudia Morrell, 64, of Parkville, Maryland, estimated her mother, Regine Hayes, spent more than $1 million during the eight years she needed residential care for dementia. That was possible only because her mother had two pensions, one from her husband’s military service and another from his job at an insurance company, plus savings and Social Security.
Morrell paid legal fees required as her mother’s guardian, as well as $6,000 on a special bed so her mother wouldn’t fall out and on private aides after she suffered repeated small strokes. Her mother died last December at age 87.
“I will never have those kinds of resources,” Morrell, an education consultant, said. “My children will never have those kinds of resources. We didn’t inherit enough or aren’t going to earn enough to have the quality of care she got. You certainly can’t live that way on Social Security.”
Women Bear the Burden of Care
For seven years, Annie Reid abandoned her life in Colorado to sleep in her childhood bedroom in Maryland, living out of her suitcase and caring for her mother, Frances Sampogna, who had dementia. “No one else in my family was able to do this,” she said.
“It just dawned on me, I have to actually unpack and live here,” Reid, 61, remembered thinking. “And how long? There’s no timeline on it.”
After Sampogna died at the end of September 2022, her daughter returned to Colorado and started a furniture redesign business, a craft she taught herself in her mother’s basement. Reid recently had her knee replaced, something she could not do in Maryland because her insurance didn’t cover doctors there.
“It’s amazing how much time went by,” she said. “I’m so grateful to be back in my life again.”
Studies are now calculating the toll of caregiving on children, especially women. The median lost wages for women providing intensive care for their mothers is $24,500 over two years, according to a study led by Norma Coe, an associate professor at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.
Lewis moved back from England to Nashville to care for her mother, a former nurse who had a stroke that put her in a wheelchair.
“I was thrust back into a caregiving role full time,” she said. She gave up a post as a research director for a nonprofit organization. She is also tending to her 87-year-old grandfather, ill with prostate cancer and kidney disease.
Making up for lost income seems daunting while she continues to support her mother.
But she is regaining hope: She was promoted to assistant dean for student affairs at Vanderbilt School of Nursing and was recently married. She and her husband plan to stay in the same apartment with her mother until they can save enough to move into a larger place.
Government Solutions Are Elusive
Over the years, lawmakers in Congress and government officials have sought to ease the financial burdens on individuals, but little has been achieved.
The CLASS Act, part of the Obamacare legislation of 2010, was supposed to give people the option of paying into a long-term insurance program. It was repealed two years later amid compelling evidence that it would never be economically viable.
Two years ago, another proposal, called the WISH Act, outlined a long-term care trust fund, but it never gained traction.
On the home care front, the scarcity of workers has led to a flurry of attempts to improve wages and working conditions for paid caregivers. A provision in the Build Back Better Act to provide more funding for home care under Medicaid was not included in the final Inflation Reduction Act, a less costly version of the original bill that Democrats sought to pass last year.
The labor shortages are largely attributed to low wages for difficult work. In the Medicaid program, demand has clearly outstripped supply, according to a recent analysis. While the number of home aides in the Medicaid program has increased to 1.4 million in 2019 from 840,000 in 2008, the number of aides per 100 people who qualify for home or community care has declined nearly 12%.
In April, President Joe Biden signed an executive order calling for changes to government programs that would improve conditions for workers and encourage initiatives that would relieve some of the burdens on families providing care.
Turning to Medicaid, a Shredded Safety Net
The only true safety net for many Americans is Medicaid, which represents, by far, the largest single source of funding for long-term care.
More than 4 in 5 middle-class people 65 or older who need long-term care for five years or more will eventually enroll, according to an analysis for the federal government by the Urban Institute. Almost half of upper-middle-class couples with lifetime earnings of more than $4.75 million will also end up on Medicaid.
But gaps in Medicaid coverage leave many people without care. Under federal law, the program is obliged to offer nursing home care in every state. In-home care, which is not guaranteed, is provided under state waivers, and the number of participants is limited. Many states have long waiting lists, and it can be extremely difficult to find aides willing to work at the low-paying Medicaid rate.
Qualifying for a slot in a nursing home paid by Medicaid can be formidable, with many families spending thousands of dollars on lawyers and consultants to navigate state rules. Homes may be sold or couples may contemplate divorce to become eligible.
And recipients and their spouses may still have to contribute significant sums. After Stan Markowitz, a former history professor in Baltimore with Parkinson’s disease, and his wife, Dottye Burt, 78, exhausted their savings on his two-year stay in an assisted living facility, he qualified for Medicaid and moved into a nursing home.
He was required to contribute $2,700 a month, which ate up 45% of the couple’s retirement income. Burt, who was a racial justice consultant for nonprofits, rented a modest apartment near the home, all she could afford on what was left of their income.
Markowitz died in September at age 86, easing the financial pressure on her. “I won’t be having to pay the nursing home,” she said.
Even finding a place willing to take someone can be a struggle. Harold Murray, Sheila Littleton’s grandfather, could no longer live safely in rural North Carolina because his worsening dementia led him to wander. She brought him to Houston in November 2020, then spent months trying to enroll him in the state’s Medicaid program so he could be in a locked unit at a nursing home.
She felt she was getting the runaround. Nursing home after nursing home told her there were no beds, or quibbled over when and how he would be eligible for a bed under Medicaid. In desperation, she left him at a psychiatric hospital so it would find him a spot.
“I had to refuse to take him back home,” she said. “They had no choice but to place him.”
He was finally approved for coverage in early 2022, at age 83.
A few months later, he died.
Reed Abelson is a health care reporter for The New York Times. The New York Times' Kirsten Noyes and graphics editor Albert Sun, KFF Health News data editor Holly K. Hacker, and JoNel Aleccia, formerly of KFF Health News, contributed to this report originally published .
US Health and Retirement Study Analysis
The New York Times-KFF Health News data analysis was based on the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative longitudinal survey of about 20,000 people age 50 and older. The analysis defined people age 65 and above as likely to need long-term care if they were assessed to have dementia, or if they reported having difficulty with two or more of six specified activities of daily living: bathing, dressing, eating, getting in and out of bed, walking across a room, and using the toilet. The Langa-Weir classification of cognitive function, a related data set, was used to identify respondents with dementia. The analysis’s definition of needing long-term care assistance is conservative and in line with the criteria most long-term care insurers use in determining whether they will pay for services.
People were described as recipients of long-term care help if they reported receiving assistance in the month before the interview for the study or if they lived in a nursing home. The analysis was developed in consultation with Norma Coe, an associate professor of medical ethics and health policy at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.
The financial toll on middle-class and upper-income people needing long-term care was examined by reviewing data that the HRS collected from 2000 to 2021 on wealthy Americans, those whose net worth at age 65 was in the 50th to 95th percentile, totaling anywhere from $171,365 to $1,827,765 in inflation-adjusted 2020 dollars. This group excludes the super-wealthy. Each individual’s wealth at age 65 was compared with their wealth just before they died to calculate the percentage of affluent people who exhausted their financial resources and the likelihood that would occur among different groups.
To calculate how many people were likely to need long-term care, how many people needing long-term care services were receiving them, and who was providing care to people receiving help, we looked at people age 65 and older of all wealth levels in the 2020-21 survey, the most recent.
The U.S. Health and Retirement Study is conducted by the University of Michigan and funded by the National Institute on Aging and the Social Security Administration.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
Subscribe to KFF Health News' free Morning Briefing.
The virus sometimes causes severe illness even in those without underlying conditions, causing more deaths in children than other vaccine-preventable diseases...
Everyone over the age of 6 months should get the latest covid-19 booster, a federal expert panel recommended Tuesday after hearing an estimate that universal vaccination could prevent 100,000 more hospitalizations each year than if only the elderly were vaccinated.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 for the motion after months of debate about whether to limit its recommendation to high-risk groups. A day earlier, the FDA approved the new booster, stating it was safe and effective at protecting against the covid variants currently circulating in the U.S.
After the last booster was released, in 2022, only 17% of the U.S. population got it — compared with the roughly half of the nation who got the first booster after it became available in fall 2021. Broader uptake was hurt by pandemic weariness and evidence the shots don’t always prevent covid infections. But those who did get the shot were far less likely to get very sick or die, according to data presented at Tuesday’s meeting.
The virus sometimes causes severe illness even in those without underlying conditions, causing more deaths in children than other vaccine-preventable diseases, as chickenpox did before vaccines against those pathogens were universally recommended.
The number of hospitalized patients with covid has ticked up modestly in recent weeks, CDC data shows, and infectious disease experts anticipate a surge in the late fall and winter.
The shots are made by Moderna and by Pfizer and its German partner, BioNTech, which have decided to charge up to $130 a shot. They have launched national marketing campaigns to encourage vaccination. The advisory committee deferred a decision on a third booster, produced by Novavax, because the FDA hasn’t yet approved it. Here’s what to know:
Who should get the covid booster?
The CDC advises that everyone over 6 months old should, for the broader benefit of all. Those at highest risk of serious disease include babies and toddlers, the elderly, pregnant women, and people with chronic health conditions including obesity. The risks are lower — though not zero — for everyone else. The vaccines, we’ve learned, tend to prevent infection in most people for only a few months. But they do a good job of preventing hospitalization and death, and by at least diminishing infections they may slow spread of the disease to the vulnerable, whose immune systems may be too weak to generate a good response to the vaccine.
Pablo Sánchez, a pediatrics professor at The Ohio State University who was the lone dissenter on the CDC panel, said he was worried the boosters hadn’t been tested enough, especially in kids. The vaccine strain in the new boosters was approved only in June, so nearly all the tests were done in mice or monkeys. However, nearly identical vaccines have been given safely to billions of people worldwide.
When should you get it?
The vaccine makers say they’ll begin rolling out the vaccine this week. If you’re in a high-risk group and haven’t been vaccinated or been sick with covid in the past two months, you could get it right away, says John Moore, an immunology expert at Weill Cornell Medical College. If you plan to travel this holiday season, as he does, Moore said, it would make sense to push your shot to late October or early November, to maximize the period in which protection induced by the vaccine is still high.
Who will pay for it?
When the ACIP recommends a vaccine for children, the government is legally obligated to guarantee kids free coverage, and the same holds for commercial insurance coverage of adult vaccines. For the 25 to 30 million uninsured adults, the federal government created the Bridge Access Program. It will pay for rural and community health centers, as well as Walgreens, CVS, and some independent pharmacies, to provide covid shots for free. Manufacturers have agreed to donate some of the doses, CDC officials said.
Will this new booster work against the current variants of covid?
It should. More than 90% of currently circulating strains are closely related to the variant selected for the booster earlier this year, and studies showed the vaccines produced ample antibodies against most of them. The shots also appeared to produce a good immune response against a divergent strain that initially worried people, called BA.2.86. That strain represents fewer than 1% of cases currently. Moore calls it a “nothingburger.”
Why are some doctors not gung-ho about the booster?
Experience with the covid vaccines has shown that their protection against hospitalization and death lasts longer than their protection against illness, which wanes relatively quickly, and this has created widespread skepticism. Most people in the U.S. have been ill with covid and most have been vaccinated at least once, which together are generally enough to prevent grave illness, if not infection — in most people. Many doctors think the focus should be on vaccinating those truly at risk.
With new covid boosters, plus flu and RSV vaccines, how many shots should I expect to get this fall?
People tend to get sick in the late fall because they’re inside more and may be traveling and gathering in large family groups. This fall, for the first time, there’s a vaccine — for older adults — against respiratory syncytial virus. Kathryn Edwards, a 75-year-old Vanderbilt University pediatrician, plans to get all three shots but “probably won’t get them all together,” she said. Covid “can have a punch” and some of the RSV vaccines and the flu shot that’s recommended for people 65 and older also can cause sore arms and, sometimes, fever or other symptoms. A hint emerged from data earlier this year that people who got flu and covid shots together might be at slightly higher risk of stroke. That linkage seems to have faded after further study, but it still might be safer not to get them together.
Pfizer and Moderna are both testing combination vaccines, with the first flu-covid shot to be available as early as next year.
Has this booster version been used elsewhere in the world?
Nope, although Pfizer’s shot has been approved in the European Union, Japan, and South Korea, and Moderna has won approval in Japan and Canada. Rollouts will start in the U.S. and other countries this week.
Unlike in earlier periods of the pandemic, mandates for the booster are unlikely. But “it’s important for people to have access to the vaccine if they want it,” said panel member Beth Bell, a professor of public health at the University of Washington.
“Having said that, it’s clear the risk is not equal, and the messaging needs to clarify that a lot of older people and people with underlying conditions are dying, and they really need to get a booster,” she said.
ACIP member Sarah Long, a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, voted for a universal recommendation but said she worried it was not enough. “I think we’ll recommend it and nobody will get it,” she said. “The people who need it most won’t get it.”
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.
PONTIAC - People everywhere are conquering their cabin fever and are enjoying the great outdoors after a long, bitter winter. But before you head out for that hike, health care experts remind you to take precautions to avoid tick bites. Read more . . .
CHICAGO - An Illinois law professor is weighing in on what she called a "very public and open test of due process" for immigrants being deported from the United States without court hearings. Read more . . .
CHAMPAIGN - In a show of solidarity against President Donald Trump's trade and immigration policies, which critics say are harming families and retirement savings, more than a thousand protesters gathered Saturday at West Park near downtown Champaign for the Hands-Off! Mobilization rally. Read more . . .
Photo Galleries
A couple of runners found themselves in the wrong race at this year's Illinois Marathon. Over 60 photos from the race that you should see.
by Grace Friedman
Among people with ischemic (clot-caused) stroke, those who began taking an antidepressant known as an SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) and/or an SNRI (serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor) for the common conditions of post-stroke depression and anxiety, did not have an increased risk of hemorrhagic (bleeds) stroke or other serious bleeding. This included people taking anticoagulation medications. There was, however, an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke among stroke patients taking two anti-platelet medications, also called dual anti-platelet therapy or DAPT.
“Mental health conditions, such as depression and anxiety, are very common yet treatable conditions that may develop after a stroke. Our results should reassure clinicians that for most stroke survivors, it is safe to prescribe SSRI and/or SNRI antidepressants early after stroke to treat post-stroke depression and anxiety, which may help optimize their patients’ recovery,” said study lead author Kent P. Simmonds, D.O., Ph.D., a third-year physical medicine and rehabilitation resident at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. “However, caution is needed when considering the risk-benefit profile for stroke patients receiving dual anti-platelet therapy because we did find an increased risk of bleeding among this group.”
