Bill to shield nursing homes from lawsuits clears Senate along party lines; not looking healthy in House despite TV, radio ads

Last week the state Senate approved on party lines a bill that would make lawsuits against nursing homes go through a review panel first. Republicans supported the bill and Democrats voted against it in a 23-12 vote that marked the clearest partisan split in the Senate in this year's legislative session.

Senate Bill 9 would create medical review panels of three physicians and an attorney moderator to hear complaints against long-term care facilities and vote on whether the suit had enough merit to go to court.  The bill's sponsor, Senate Health and Welfare Chairwoman Julie Denton, R-Louisville, declind to answer an opposign senator's questions about the bill. She said in introducing it that the panel would be advisory but its opinion would be admissible in court and would curb such lawsuits, reports Jack Brammer of the Lexington Herald-Leader.

Bills like this have failed in years past and could have diverse implications for Kentucky communities and nursing homes. At least one Kentucky newspaper looked around and found that lawsuits are one reason Extendicare Health Services Inc. shed management responsibilities last year for all 21 of its facilities in Kentucky, reports Nick Tabor of the Kentucky New Era in Hopkinsville.

Without Extendicare management in Western Kentucky, the volume of nursing-home lawsuits in the region appears to be shrinking, Tabor reports. In recent years, nearly all the Christian County cases that have been closed were dismissed through settlements, not by judges declaring them unfounded. This suggests the bill would minimally affect the county, writes Tabor. Other Kentucky communities may be affected differently; judges differ from circuit to circuit.

Although the bill passed the Senate, it appears to be on its deathbed in the House. Rep. Tom Burch, D-Louisville, who chairs the House Health and Welfare Committee, joked about its prospects to Tabor: “I can’t make any predictions about the bill this time, but I’ve called in three priests to have the last rites ready.” If nursing homes received this new layer of protection, he said, hospitals and day-care centers would want it too.

A similar bill died in Burch's committee last year; this version is being supported by television and radio commercials urging viewers and listeners to call their legislators in support. When Extendicare announced last spring it was transferring management of all its Kentucky facilities to a Texas company, it cited Kentucky’s “worsening litigation environment” and said tort reform seemed unlikely here.

Bernie Vonderheide, director of Kentuckians for Nursing Home Reform, said most so-called “frivolous” lawsuits would cease if the state imposed minimum staffing requirements on nursing homes, his group's main legislative goal. (Read more)

Coalition of health groups launches two-week ad campaign to drum up support for a statewide smoking ban

A geographically targeted newspaper and online advertising campaign calling for "a comprehensive, statewide smoke-free law" is hitting Kentucky media outlets this week, as the legislature convenes, and next week. The campaign was launched by Smoke-Free Kentucky Coalition, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The newspaper ad can viewed here.

Twenty-nine percent of Kentucky adults are smokers, giving the state the highest smoking rate in the U.S., and ranks very high in youth smoking, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Kentucky also has the nation's highest lung cancer death rates, 87 percent of which are caused by smoking, according to the National Cancer Institute. The state also "lags behind other states in enacting a comprehensive, statewide smoke-free law that covers all indoor workplaces, including bars and restaurants," a press release about the ad campaign says. Twenty-four states have smoking bans. A fall poll for the Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky showed that 59 percent of Kentucky adults support a smoking ban in workplaces, restaurants and bars. For a story on the poll, click here.

Tobacco-Free Kids communications manager Catherine Butsch said the ad is running in the Lexington Herald-Leader, the Messenger-Inquirer of Owensboro, the Daily Independent of Ashland, the Commonwealth Journal of Somerset, the Kentucky New Era of Hopkinsville, the Glasgow Daily Times, the Paducah Sun, the Paducah-based West Kentucky News, the Sentinel-Echo of London, the Lebanon Enterprise, the Jessamine Journal, the Tompkinsville News, the Carlisle Weekly of Bardwell, the Fulton Leader, the Marshall County Tribune Courier, and the Kentucky Gazette, a government-oriented twice-monthly in Frankfort. The online ad will run on websites of the Herald-Leader, Business Lexington, The Lane Report and CN2, a cable news service. The campaign will cost $93,000, Butsch said.

Obesity is a dirty word: Study looks at what works in anti-obesity campaigns, and it's not telling people they're fat

What about those anti-obesity ads? Is anyone listening? If so, is anyone motivated to do better? Might they be offensive to some? Educational? Helpful? Are they working at all? More importantly, why and why not?

Researchers at Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity have stepped into the breach to measure Americans' attitudes about ads meant to encourage less girth and better nutrition. According to The Atlantic's Lindsay Abrams, the researchers took a nationally representative sample of Americans and asked them to look hard at these highly visible campaigns and their somewhat showy slogans. Abrams writes: "The researchers were interested in knowing what the respondents thought about how informative, motivating, or credible the slogans seemed. They were also curious as to which ads came off as confusing, stigmatizing, or inappropriate. Finally, they asked the respondents whether they intended to follow the messages' advice."

The result? Not surprising, really. We want positive reinforcement and reject stigmatizing or otherwise negative messages. Our favorite message of the ones examined? The simple one from First Lady Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" campaign, "Move Every Day."  The most positively rated campaigns? "Those focused on encouraging specific health behaviors or actions, like eating fruits and vegetables every day or engaging in physical activity," said the study's lead author Rebecca Puhl, "And the most motivating were the ones that made no mention of obesity or weight at all."

Nobody, researchers found, likes being told that their child's obesity is their fault or that it is child abuse. Neither do we like being told we're fat but not told clearly what to do about it. 'Obesity' itself is a bad word. "Certainly what we find is when more neutral words are used, like 'unhealthy weight' or 'high BMI' those are preferred and viewed to be more motivating," said Puhl. The trick, Abrams writes, is going to be in "figuring out how to be anti-obesity without being anti-obese people" -- and boiling these issues down to a slogan is difficult to do. (Read more)

You might also be interested in a related Atlantic story about how a Minnesota "anti-obesity" campaign lies in that gray area between educating and shaming. To read the story and view the videos of the ads, go here.

Meds-for-meth bill drew record lobbying expenses, not even including radio and newspaper ad campaigns

Makers of over-the-counter drugs spent more than any lobbying interest ever had during a single Kentucky legislative session in their effort to defeat a bill requiring prescriptions for the key ingredient in methamphetamine, Bill Estep reports for the Lexington Herald-Leader.

"The Consumer Healthcare Products Association spent $457,053 on lobbying activities in the first three months of this year's legislative session, according to reports filed with the state Legislative Ethics Commission," Estep writes. "The group's lobbying effort was so dominant that it spent more than the next five groups combined in that period, January through March, according to spending reports."

And the figure doesn't even included hundreds of thousands of dollars that the trade group spent on radio and newspaper campaigns, because the lobby-reporting requirements do not apply to messages aimed only at the general public. The group did report spending on "a phone-bank operation to put people in contact with legislators to voice concerns about legislation to require a prescription for medicine containing pseudoephedrine, which is now available over the counter," Estep writes.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2012/04/30/2170495/makers-of-cold-medicines-set-new.html#storylink=cpy

The efforts, dating back to 2010, were partly successful. The legislature passed a bill "that will require a doctor's prescription for pseudoephedrine, but only after someone has bought 24 grams of the medicine a year," Estep notes. "A 48-count box of the generic medicine with 30-milligram pills contains 1.44 grams of pseudoephedrine. The bill excludes limits on gel caps and liquid pseudoephedrine." (Read more)

The lobbying effort wasn't only about Kentucky. The makers of Sudafed and other pseudoephedrine preparations are trying to stave off similar efforts in other states, and viewed Kentucky as a sort of firewall after seeing prescription-only laws pass in Oregon and Mississippi.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2012/04/30/2170495/makers-of-cold-medicines-set-new.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2012/04/30/2170495/makers-of-cold-medicines-set-new.html#storylink=cpy

Makers of Sudafed, similar cold medicines again lead in legislative lobbying expenses, and that doesn't count their radio ad campaign

The Consumer Healthcare Products Association, which is fighting legislation that would limit the amount of pseudoephedrine that could be bought without a prescription, remained the leading spender among lobbying interests at the General Assembly in February, the state Legislative Ethics Commission said in its monthly newsletter.

CHPA, which represents manufacturers and distributors of over-the-counter medicines, spent $192,985 on lobbying in February, and a total of $388,000 for the first two months of the session. Those amounts do not include an extensive radio advertising campaign, which from all indications has cost more than the spending that had to be reported.

Other health-care interests were among the top spenders in February. Ranking second through 11th were the Kentucky Hospital Association ($38,422, for a two-month total of $74,543); the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce ($30,056, two-month total $63,404); Altria (Philip Morris) Client Services ($28,129, two-month $50,434); the Kentucky Farm Bureau Federation ($24,805, total $38,655); AT&T ($24,199, total $47,432); the Kentucky Medical Association ($21,958, total $42,731); the Kentucky Education Association ($21,629, total $45,249); the Kentucky Retail Federation ($21,191, total $45,452), which also opposes the meds-for-meth bill; Kentuckians for the Commonwealth ($18,317, total $34,188) and the Kentucky Optometric Association ($18,227, total unavailable).

Group fighting meds-for-meth bill says it spent nearly $200,000 in January on lobbying, and that apparently omits radio buys

The group fighting a bill that would make the key ingredient for making methamphetamine available only by prescription spent more than $194,000 last month alone to lobby lawmakers, far more than any other lobbying interest at the General Assembly.

The Consumer Healthcare Products Association "reported spending more on Frankfort lobbying for the month than the next eight largest groups combined," reports Tom Loftus of The Courier-Journal. "That's almost an obscene amount of money to be spending on one month on one issue," said Senate Majority Leader Robert Stivers, R-Manchester. Stivers is sponsoring the bill, which would require a prescription for cold and allergy medicine that contains pseudoephedrine.

The group with the second highest spending was the Kentucky Hospital Association, at $36,120.

CHPA "is a group of manufacturers and distributors of over-the-counter medicines whose members include Bayer Healthcare, GlaxoSmithKline and Johnson & Johnson," Loftus reports. In a statement Monday, the group said it is again "efforts by some legislators to deny law-abiding citizens nonprescription access to certain cold and allergy medicines they depend on."

The $194,957.76 spent on lobbying apparently does not include what the CHPA spent on broadcast advertising, which it does not have to report. As of Feb. 3, the group had spent more than $82,000 running ads on Louisville, Lexington and Somerset radio stations owned by Clear Channel Communications Inc., the nation's largest radio operator, according to public-inspection files at those stations, the only ones that have been checked by Kentucky Health News and its journalistic partner, Jonah Engle. In 2011, CHPA paid the Kentucky Association of Radio and Television more than $93,000 to run ads, according to public-inspection files from Cumulus Broadcasting, another major owner of stations in Kentucky.

As for lobbying expenses, more than $12,000 was spent on salaries for three lobbyists, plus nearly $4,000 for food, lodging, beverage and transportation expenses. More than $150,000 was spent "for professional and technical research and assistance," plus nearly $27,000 for "educational and promotional items."

"I'm not surprised they reported so much for lobbying because it's obvious they're doing a pretty good job of getting their message out ... which I believe is a misleading scare campaign," said Sen. Ray Jones, D-Pikeville, who is co-sponsoring the meds-for-meth bill. (Read more)

Pat Boone commercial about Medicare has many inaccuracies

A television commerical misleads seniors into believing the federal health-care reform law will ration and deny care and contains other inaccuracies, according to FactCheck.org, a non-partisan, non-profit service based at the University of Pennsylvania.

The ad features singer Pat Boone and is being aired repeatedly in Ohio (and presumably in Northern Kentucky) by the conservative 60 Plus Association. It claims the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will create the Independent Payment Advisory Board, made up of elected bureaucrats who "can ration care and deny certain Medicare treatments so Washington can fund more wasteful spending."Boone says,"Unaccountable bureaucrats should never have the power to deny you the care you deserve."

The board is neither made up of bureaucrats, nor can it ration care. "The IPAB is tasked with finding ways to reduce the growth in Medicare spending," FactCheck reports. "Its 15 voting members won't be bureaucrats, according to the health care law (see page 502); they will be doctors and medical professionals, economists and health care management experts."

The law also says proposals from the IPAB "shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise reveneues or Medicare beneficiary premiums ... increase Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance and copayments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria."

The ad says the law will cut $500 billion from Medicare, but fails to mention that cut is in the future growth of Medicare over 10 years and will come from the supplemental Medicare plans seniors can buy.  Moreover, though Boone suggests seniors should object to the $500 billion in cuts, they are meant to extend the funding of Medicare Part A by 12 years.

The ad also states Medicare will be bankrupt in nine years. "The truth is that Medicare Part A — the hospital insurance trust fund, one of four parts of Medicare — is expected to be insolvent by 2020, according to the projections from the Congressional Budget Office, or perhaps 2024, according to the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees," FactCheck reports. "Shortfalls have been projected for Part A 'almost from inception,' says a Congressional Research Service report," but Congress has always found a way to extend the program. (Read more)

Link found between kids watching food-based TV commercials and childhood obesity

Watching TV commercials, not the sedentary act of watching TV itself, contributes to obesity in children, according to a study published by the American Journal of Public Health.

The study found that the average child sees about 4,000 television commercials advertising food each year. During Saturday morning cartoons, kids see a food ad about every five minutes. Of that food advertised, about 95 percent of it is of poor nutritional value.

In the study, Associations of Television Content Type and Obesity in Children, researchers followed children from 1997 to 2002 to observe how different types of television might affect obesity rates. They found "television advertising, rather than viewing per se, is associated with obesity." During the five-year period, children saw an increasing amount of commercials and a decreasing amount of non-commercial programming. (Read more)