Arc to Arcturus, spike to Spica and Jupiter

Tonight, look outside in the evening and learn a phrase useful to sky watchers. The phrase is: follow the arc to Arcturus, and drive a spike (or speed on) to Spica. You can use this phrase in any year, but, in 2017, you’ll especially enjoy using it to help identify the evening sky’s brightest planet, Jupiter.

First locate the Big Dipper asterism in the northeastern sky. Then draw an imaginary line following the curve in the Dipper’s handle until you come to a bright orange star. This star is Arcturus in the constellation Bootes, known in skylore as the bear guard.

Arcturus is a giant star with an estimated distance of 37 light-years. It’s special because it’s not moving with the general stream of stars, in the flat disk of the Milky Way galaxy. Instead, Arcturus is cutting perpendicularly through the galaxy’s disk at a tremendous rate of speed … some 100 miles (150 km) per second. Millions of years from now this star will be lost from the view of any future inhabitants of Earth, or at least those who are earthbound and looking with the eye alone.

Now drive a spike or, as some say, speed on to Spica in the constellation Virgo … and, in 2017, to the planet Jupiter as well.

Spica in the constellation Virgo looks like one star, but this single point of light is really a multiple star system – with two hot stars orbiting very close together – located an estimated distance of 262 light-years away from Earth.

Jupiter is bright! You’ll have no trouble spotting it. But if you’re not sure, follow the arc to Arcturus – drive a spike to Spica – and look for Jupiter nearby. This weekend, the moon will be sweeping past Jupiter. Learn to identify it tonight, and enjoy the moon’s movement toward it in the coming days!

The moon will sweep past Jupiter on May 6, 7 and 8, 2017.

Want another way to find Jupiter? Notice the tiny, squarish constellation Corvus the Crow nearby.

Bottom line: Follow the arc to Arcturus, and drive a spike to Spica – and, in 2017, to Jupiter.


Big and Little Dippers: Noticeable in northern sky

Enjoying EarthSky so far? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!

EarthSky astronomy kits are perfect for beginners. Order today from the EarthSky store

Donate: Your support means the world to us



from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1lLgQgD

Tonight, look outside in the evening and learn a phrase useful to sky watchers. The phrase is: follow the arc to Arcturus, and drive a spike (or speed on) to Spica. You can use this phrase in any year, but, in 2017, you’ll especially enjoy using it to help identify the evening sky’s brightest planet, Jupiter.

First locate the Big Dipper asterism in the northeastern sky. Then draw an imaginary line following the curve in the Dipper’s handle until you come to a bright orange star. This star is Arcturus in the constellation Bootes, known in skylore as the bear guard.

Arcturus is a giant star with an estimated distance of 37 light-years. It’s special because it’s not moving with the general stream of stars, in the flat disk of the Milky Way galaxy. Instead, Arcturus is cutting perpendicularly through the galaxy’s disk at a tremendous rate of speed … some 100 miles (150 km) per second. Millions of years from now this star will be lost from the view of any future inhabitants of Earth, or at least those who are earthbound and looking with the eye alone.

Now drive a spike or, as some say, speed on to Spica in the constellation Virgo … and, in 2017, to the planet Jupiter as well.

Spica in the constellation Virgo looks like one star, but this single point of light is really a multiple star system – with two hot stars orbiting very close together – located an estimated distance of 262 light-years away from Earth.

Jupiter is bright! You’ll have no trouble spotting it. But if you’re not sure, follow the arc to Arcturus – drive a spike to Spica – and look for Jupiter nearby. This weekend, the moon will be sweeping past Jupiter. Learn to identify it tonight, and enjoy the moon’s movement toward it in the coming days!

The moon will sweep past Jupiter on May 6, 7 and 8, 2017.

Want another way to find Jupiter? Notice the tiny, squarish constellation Corvus the Crow nearby.

Bottom line: Follow the arc to Arcturus, and drive a spike to Spica – and, in 2017, to Jupiter.


Big and Little Dippers: Noticeable in northern sky

Enjoying EarthSky so far? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!

EarthSky astronomy kits are perfect for beginners. Order today from the EarthSky store

Donate: Your support means the world to us



from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1lLgQgD

Study: Training parents as immunization advocates a promising approach to vaccine hesitancy [The Pump Handle]

Protecting babies and children against dangerous — sometimes fatal — diseases is a core mission of public health. Everyday, in health departments across the nation, someone is working on maintaining and improving childhood vaccination rates and keeping diseases like measles and mumps from regaining a foothold in the U.S.

Fortunately for us, public health has been so successful that it’s easy to forget what it was like just a few decades ago when measles was a common childhood illness. (Though here’s a reminder.) But sustaining vaccination rates that provide population-wide protection against disease is complicated work — and it’s complicated even more by growing hesitancy among some parents to vaccinate their children. Confronting that challenge in the age of the Internet is a sizeable task for public health, especially with research showing that simply relying on evidence-based talking points won’t always work and, in some cases, can even be counterproductive. That’s why finding an effective way to break through today’s clutter of information (and misinformation) to reach concerned parents is so important to sustaining current immunization rates.

In Washington state, where school entry vaccination exemptions had doubled over a decade and were three times higher than the national average, researchers have developed a promising way to do just that. Known as the Immunity Community, the intervention mobilizes vaccine-supportive parents and trains them to use positive dialogue to engage their peers, both in person and online, in discussions about vaccines. An evaluation of the three-year intervention, published last month in Health Promotion Practice, is very encouraging: parents who described themselves as “vaccine hesitant” fell from 23 percent to 14 percent, while parental concerns about their peers’ decisions not to vaccinate rose from 81 percent to 89 percent.

Clarissa Hsu, who helped design the intervention and co-authored the recent study, told me the key to Immunity Community was building off the positive experiences of parent vaccine advocates, rather than highlighting the differences between parents.

“We wanted to promote what’s already happening, which is that most parents do vaccinate,” said Hsu, who’s with the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute’s Center for Community Health and Evaluation. “It wasn’t about attacking people’s beliefs, but about communicating positive messages about vaccines. …It allowed people to hear these messages without it being a direct confrontation.”

Vax Northwest, a public-private partnership that convened in 2008 to address vaccine hesitancy in Washington, developed the Immunity Community after early research identified parental social groups as promising intervention points for changing vaccine attitudes. Mackenzie Melton, immunization coordinator at WithinReach Washington, an organizational member of Vax Northwest, said those early focus groups revealed that while parents typically ranked health care providers as the most trusted source of vaccine information, their social networks of friends and family came second. As such, Immunity Community was developed to leverage the trust that parents already have within their social networks to create positive consensus around vaccines.

“The real thrust of the whole campaign was how to be immunization positive without being negative about people who don’t immunize,” Todd Faubion, immunization manager at WithinReach, told me. “We wanted (parent advocates) to talk about themselves — it was about them and how they can talk positively about immunizations.”

Immunity Community organizers worked with staff at schools, preschools and child care centers to recruit and train interested parents to become advocates in their communities. Recruits were then educated on basic vaccine science and trained on how to communicate effectively and respectfully with peers, organize immunization-positive activities, and engage fellow parents on social media.

“The emphasis was on the fact that (parent advocates) were trusted resources, not immunization experts,” Melton told me. “We wanted them to talk from the heart about why they thought (vaccines) were important for their families and communities. We didn’t want to dictate what (advocates) did — we wanted them to have the tools to have these conversations organically.”

Immunity Community was implemented in two communities: a suburban school district outside a major metro area and a small city in a rural county. In both, parent advocates engaged in a variety of immunization-positive activities, such as social media advocacy, hosting school events, passing out immunization materials and having one-on-one conversations with other parents. The evaluation in Health Promotion Practice, based on hundreds of survey responses from parents before and after the intervention, found that fewer parents thought children receive vaccines at too young an age, more parents were confident that vaccinating was a good idea, and more were aware of vaccination rates at their child’s school or day care. Also post-intervention, more parents agreed that vaccine ingredients were safe and more were concerned about fellow parents deciding not to vaccinate. Overall, the number of parents who identified as “vaccine hesitant” declined from 23 percent before the intervention to 14 percent after.

Study co-authors Hsu, Melton, Faubion, Jennie Schoeppe, Allen Cheadle, Creagh Miller and Juno Matthys write:

This study demonstrates the promise of a new and innovative approach to reducing vaccine hesitancy: engaging parent volunteers to be advocates in their own communities. The approach builds on findings that parents’ social networks are a strong predictor of vaccine acceptance and that likeable, trustworthy messengers are positively received. Results show statistically significant shifts in certain vaccine-related knowledge and attitudes among parents in prioritized communities. In order to test the long-term impacts of such a program, like decreased vaccine exemption rates, researchers must identify ways to accurately calculate immunization rates at participating sites, especially sites where there is no requirement to report to the state Department of Health.

In addition to changes in attitude, the Immunity Community also impacted statewide policy. Hsu reported that as a direct result of the intervention, officials enhanced recommendations guiding how cooperative preschools track immunization rates and disease outbreaks among their students. Hsu called the change, which affects more than 10,000 families, “a big win for public health.”

Of course, as with most studies, this one has its limitations. Hsu noted that because there was no control group with which to compare the Immunity Community effect, researchers can’t say whether the changes in parental attitudes were a direct result of the intervention. More research is needed to determine the long-term impact of Immunity Community on immunization behaviors, she told me. But one of the most promising results of the study, Hsu told me, is that “this is doable.” In other words, parents can be trained to be advocates for vaccines and their peers seem receptive to their vaccine-positive messaging approach.

“It created a new set of positive conversations around vaccines,” Hsu said. “I certainly think (Immunity Community) is a strategy that’s ready for people to try to implement elsewhere.”

Study co-author Faubion said while the formal evaluation process of Immunity Community is over, its advocates “remain strong and willing to step in when there’s an opportunity” to have a positive conversation about vaccines. Today, he said, Immunity Community is a publicly available resource for anyone in Washington state and beyond. To access its resources and assistance, contact Faubion and Melton at Vax Northwest.

“The whole idea was to create something innovative for public health officials,” Hsu said. “It’s critical that kids are vaccinated and that communities at-large understand herd immunity and how their decisions impact others.”

For a full copy of the Immunity Community study, visit Health Promotion Practice.

Kim Krisberg is a freelance public health writer living in Austin, Texas, and has been writing about public health for 15 years. Follow me on Twitter — @kkrisberg.



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2pCeACp

Protecting babies and children against dangerous — sometimes fatal — diseases is a core mission of public health. Everyday, in health departments across the nation, someone is working on maintaining and improving childhood vaccination rates and keeping diseases like measles and mumps from regaining a foothold in the U.S.

Fortunately for us, public health has been so successful that it’s easy to forget what it was like just a few decades ago when measles was a common childhood illness. (Though here’s a reminder.) But sustaining vaccination rates that provide population-wide protection against disease is complicated work — and it’s complicated even more by growing hesitancy among some parents to vaccinate their children. Confronting that challenge in the age of the Internet is a sizeable task for public health, especially with research showing that simply relying on evidence-based talking points won’t always work and, in some cases, can even be counterproductive. That’s why finding an effective way to break through today’s clutter of information (and misinformation) to reach concerned parents is so important to sustaining current immunization rates.

In Washington state, where school entry vaccination exemptions had doubled over a decade and were three times higher than the national average, researchers have developed a promising way to do just that. Known as the Immunity Community, the intervention mobilizes vaccine-supportive parents and trains them to use positive dialogue to engage their peers, both in person and online, in discussions about vaccines. An evaluation of the three-year intervention, published last month in Health Promotion Practice, is very encouraging: parents who described themselves as “vaccine hesitant” fell from 23 percent to 14 percent, while parental concerns about their peers’ decisions not to vaccinate rose from 81 percent to 89 percent.

Clarissa Hsu, who helped design the intervention and co-authored the recent study, told me the key to Immunity Community was building off the positive experiences of parent vaccine advocates, rather than highlighting the differences between parents.

“We wanted to promote what’s already happening, which is that most parents do vaccinate,” said Hsu, who’s with the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute’s Center for Community Health and Evaluation. “It wasn’t about attacking people’s beliefs, but about communicating positive messages about vaccines. …It allowed people to hear these messages without it being a direct confrontation.”

Vax Northwest, a public-private partnership that convened in 2008 to address vaccine hesitancy in Washington, developed the Immunity Community after early research identified parental social groups as promising intervention points for changing vaccine attitudes. Mackenzie Melton, immunization coordinator at WithinReach Washington, an organizational member of Vax Northwest, said those early focus groups revealed that while parents typically ranked health care providers as the most trusted source of vaccine information, their social networks of friends and family came second. As such, Immunity Community was developed to leverage the trust that parents already have within their social networks to create positive consensus around vaccines.

“The real thrust of the whole campaign was how to be immunization positive without being negative about people who don’t immunize,” Todd Faubion, immunization manager at WithinReach, told me. “We wanted (parent advocates) to talk about themselves — it was about them and how they can talk positively about immunizations.”

Immunity Community organizers worked with staff at schools, preschools and child care centers to recruit and train interested parents to become advocates in their communities. Recruits were then educated on basic vaccine science and trained on how to communicate effectively and respectfully with peers, organize immunization-positive activities, and engage fellow parents on social media.

“The emphasis was on the fact that (parent advocates) were trusted resources, not immunization experts,” Melton told me. “We wanted them to talk from the heart about why they thought (vaccines) were important for their families and communities. We didn’t want to dictate what (advocates) did — we wanted them to have the tools to have these conversations organically.”

Immunity Community was implemented in two communities: a suburban school district outside a major metro area and a small city in a rural county. In both, parent advocates engaged in a variety of immunization-positive activities, such as social media advocacy, hosting school events, passing out immunization materials and having one-on-one conversations with other parents. The evaluation in Health Promotion Practice, based on hundreds of survey responses from parents before and after the intervention, found that fewer parents thought children receive vaccines at too young an age, more parents were confident that vaccinating was a good idea, and more were aware of vaccination rates at their child’s school or day care. Also post-intervention, more parents agreed that vaccine ingredients were safe and more were concerned about fellow parents deciding not to vaccinate. Overall, the number of parents who identified as “vaccine hesitant” declined from 23 percent before the intervention to 14 percent after.

Study co-authors Hsu, Melton, Faubion, Jennie Schoeppe, Allen Cheadle, Creagh Miller and Juno Matthys write:

This study demonstrates the promise of a new and innovative approach to reducing vaccine hesitancy: engaging parent volunteers to be advocates in their own communities. The approach builds on findings that parents’ social networks are a strong predictor of vaccine acceptance and that likeable, trustworthy messengers are positively received. Results show statistically significant shifts in certain vaccine-related knowledge and attitudes among parents in prioritized communities. In order to test the long-term impacts of such a program, like decreased vaccine exemption rates, researchers must identify ways to accurately calculate immunization rates at participating sites, especially sites where there is no requirement to report to the state Department of Health.

In addition to changes in attitude, the Immunity Community also impacted statewide policy. Hsu reported that as a direct result of the intervention, officials enhanced recommendations guiding how cooperative preschools track immunization rates and disease outbreaks among their students. Hsu called the change, which affects more than 10,000 families, “a big win for public health.”

Of course, as with most studies, this one has its limitations. Hsu noted that because there was no control group with which to compare the Immunity Community effect, researchers can’t say whether the changes in parental attitudes were a direct result of the intervention. More research is needed to determine the long-term impact of Immunity Community on immunization behaviors, she told me. But one of the most promising results of the study, Hsu told me, is that “this is doable.” In other words, parents can be trained to be advocates for vaccines and their peers seem receptive to their vaccine-positive messaging approach.

“It created a new set of positive conversations around vaccines,” Hsu said. “I certainly think (Immunity Community) is a strategy that’s ready for people to try to implement elsewhere.”

Study co-author Faubion said while the formal evaluation process of Immunity Community is over, its advocates “remain strong and willing to step in when there’s an opportunity” to have a positive conversation about vaccines. Today, he said, Immunity Community is a publicly available resource for anyone in Washington state and beyond. To access its resources and assistance, contact Faubion and Melton at Vax Northwest.

“The whole idea was to create something innovative for public health officials,” Hsu said. “It’s critical that kids are vaccinated and that communities at-large understand herd immunity and how their decisions impact others.”

For a full copy of the Immunity Community study, visit Health Promotion Practice.

Kim Krisberg is a freelance public health writer living in Austin, Texas, and has been writing about public health for 15 years. Follow me on Twitter — @kkrisberg.



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2pCeACp

Mary’s Monday Metazoan: What big eyes you have! [Pharyngula]



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2qrFY3J


from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2qrFY3J

Tetrabenzo[7]circulene

I have discussed the circulenes in a few previous posts. Depending on their size, they can be bowls, flat disks, or saddles. A computational study of [7]circulene noted that C2 structure is slightly higher in energy than the Cs form,1 though the C2 form is found in the x-ray structure.2

Now, Miao and co-workers have synthesized the tetrabenzo[7]circulene 1 and also examined its structure using DFT.3

As with the parent compound, a C2 and Cs form were located at B3LYP/6-31G(d,p), and are shown in Figure 1. The C2 form is 7.6 kcal mol-1 lower in energy than the Cs structure, and the two are separated by a transition state (also shown in Figure 1) with a barrier of 12.2 kcal mol-1. The interconversion of these conformations takes place without going through a planar form. The x-ray structure contains only the C2 structure. It should be noted that the C2 structure is chiral, and racemization would take place by the path: 1-Cs ⇆ 1-Cs ⇆ 1-C2*, where 1-C2* is the enantiomer of 1-C2.

1-C2

1-TS

1-Cs

Figure 1. B3LYP/6-31G(d,p) optimized structures of 1.

References

1) Hatanaka, M., "Puckering Energetics and Optical Activities of [7]Circulene Conformers." J. Phys. Chem. A 2016, 120 (7), 1074-1083, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpca.5b10543.

2) Yamamoto, K.; Harada, T.; Okamoto, Y.; Chikamatsu, H.; Nakazaki, M.; Kai, Y.; Nakao, T.; Tanaka, M.; Harada, S.; Kasai, N., "Synthesis and molecular structure of [7]circulene." J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1988, 110 (11), 3578-3584, DOI: 10.1021/ja00219a036.

3) Gu, X.; Li, H.; Shan, B.; Liu, Z.; Miao, Q., "Synthesis, Structure, and Properties of Tetrabenzo[7]circulene." Org. Letters 2017, DOI: 10.1021/acs.orglett.7b00714.

InChIs

1: InChI=1S/C44H22/c1-5-13-28-24(9-1)32-19-17-23-18-20-33-25-10-2-6-14-29(25)38-31-16-8-4-12-27(31)35-22-21-34-26-11-3-7-15-30(26)37(28)43-39(32)36(23)40(33)44(38)42(35)41(34)43/h1-22H
InChIKey=KVMXYGAVHDZMNP-UHFFFAOYSA-N



from Computational Organic Chemistry http://ift.tt/2pyvuQ0

I have discussed the circulenes in a few previous posts. Depending on their size, they can be bowls, flat disks, or saddles. A computational study of [7]circulene noted that C2 structure is slightly higher in energy than the Cs form,1 though the C2 form is found in the x-ray structure.2

Now, Miao and co-workers have synthesized the tetrabenzo[7]circulene 1 and also examined its structure using DFT.3

As with the parent compound, a C2 and Cs form were located at B3LYP/6-31G(d,p), and are shown in Figure 1. The C2 form is 7.6 kcal mol-1 lower in energy than the Cs structure, and the two are separated by a transition state (also shown in Figure 1) with a barrier of 12.2 kcal mol-1. The interconversion of these conformations takes place without going through a planar form. The x-ray structure contains only the C2 structure. It should be noted that the C2 structure is chiral, and racemization would take place by the path: 1-Cs ⇆ 1-Cs ⇆ 1-C2*, where 1-C2* is the enantiomer of 1-C2.

1-C2

1-TS

1-Cs

Figure 1. B3LYP/6-31G(d,p) optimized structures of 1.

References

1) Hatanaka, M., "Puckering Energetics and Optical Activities of [7]Circulene Conformers." J. Phys. Chem. A 2016, 120 (7), 1074-1083, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpca.5b10543.

2) Yamamoto, K.; Harada, T.; Okamoto, Y.; Chikamatsu, H.; Nakazaki, M.; Kai, Y.; Nakao, T.; Tanaka, M.; Harada, S.; Kasai, N., "Synthesis and molecular structure of [7]circulene." J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1988, 110 (11), 3578-3584, DOI: 10.1021/ja00219a036.

3) Gu, X.; Li, H.; Shan, B.; Liu, Z.; Miao, Q., "Synthesis, Structure, and Properties of Tetrabenzo[7]circulene." Org. Letters 2017, DOI: 10.1021/acs.orglett.7b00714.

InChIs

1: InChI=1S/C44H22/c1-5-13-28-24(9-1)32-19-17-23-18-20-33-25-10-2-6-14-29(25)38-31-16-8-4-12-27(31)35-22-21-34-26-11-3-7-15-30(26)37(28)43-39(32)36(23)40(33)44(38)42(35)41(34)43/h1-22H
InChIKey=KVMXYGAVHDZMNP-UHFFFAOYSA-N



from Computational Organic Chemistry http://ift.tt/2pyvuQ0

House Republicans resurrect GOPcare and make it even worse [The Pump Handle]

Back in March, House Republicans pulled the unpopular and highly problematic American Health Care Act from consideration, and House Minority Leader Paul Ryan declared “Obamacare is the law of the land.” Now, however House Republicans are trying again to undo the Affordable Care Act. Last week, Representative Tom MacArthur (R-NJ) introduced an amendment designed to win over the hard-line House Freedom Caucus, who opposed the original AHCA because it didn’t do enough to roll back existing law.

As the New York Times’ Margot Sanger-Katz summarizes, the amendment would allow states to receive waivers to:

  • Replace the essential health benefits standards with their own standards (e.g., to eliminate the requirement that insurers cover maternity benefits, prescription drugs, etc. — see Kim Krisberg’s post for more);
  • Charge higher premiums to customers with high health needs who had experienced a lapse of coverage lasting more than 63 days (i.e., end community rating for those without continuous coverage); and
  • Charge older people up to five times as much as younger people, instead of the ACA’s 3:1 limit (i.e., modify the ACA’s age rating provision).

Sanger-Katz explains: “Broadly speaking, states with such waivers would be worse for Americans with more complex health care needs, but would have lower insurance premiums for people without a history of illness.” Of course, many of us start our adult lives without a history of significant illness, but become more expensive to insurers as we age or bear children. So, someone getting a good deal under this version of the AHCA in 2018 could easily find premiums skyrocketing a few years later – a problem the Affordable Care Act was specifically designed to address.

States that receive waivers would have to set up high risk pools if they get a waiver that allows insurers to charge higher premiums to sicker customers, Sanger-Katz notes. When states set up high-risk pools in the past, though, many faced spiraling costs. Minnesota’s pre-ACA high-risk pool was widely considered one of the best, but MPRNews’s Mark Zdechlik reported that it needed large subsidies and still left many consumers facing costs that were far too high:

Craig Britton of Plymouth, Minn., once had a plan through the state’s high-risk pool. It cost him $18,000 a year in premiums.

Britton was forced to buy the expensive MCHA coverage because of a pancreatitis diagnosis. He calls the idea that high-risk pools are good for consumers “a lot of baloney.”

“That is catastrophic cost,” Britton says. “You have to have a good living just to pay for insurance.”

And that’s the problem with high-risk pools, says Stefan Gildemeister, an economist with Minnesota’s health department.

“It’s not cheap coverage to the individual, and it’s not cheap coverage to the system,” Gildemeister says.

MCHA’s monthly premiums cost policy holders 25 percent more than conventional coverage, Gildemeister points out, and that left many people uninsured in Minnesota.

“There were people out there who had a chronic disease or had a pre-existing condition who couldn’t get a policy,” Gildemeister says.

And for the MCHA, even the higher premiums fell far short of covering the full cost of care for the roughly 25,000 people who were insured by the program. It needed more than $173 million in subsidies in its final year of normal operation.

The American Hospital Association, American Medical Association, and American Association of Retired Persons have all denounced the revised GOP proposal, The Hill’s Peter Sullivan reports. Vox’s Sarah Kliff points out that the parts of the ACA that states would be able to drop under the new amendment are among the most population provisions; 70% of those responding to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll support requiring all states to protect those with pre-existing conditions, and 62% approve of requiring essential health benefits.

Allowing states to get waivers for essential health benefits, community rating, and age rating requirements of the ACA would be in addition to what the AHCA already would do to slash Medicaid and shrink subsidies for all but the youngest low-incomes purchasers of marketplace plans, resulting in an estimated 24 million people losing insurance. The original AHCA, as Kim Krisberg noted, “will cause unnecessary suffering and death.” With this amendment, a bill that was already bad for public health has become even worse.

Related Posts
The ACA marketplace is beginning to stabilize. But it can’t withstand federal sabotage. (4/21/17)
Playing politics with women’s health (4/3/17)
After GOPcare collapse, how will Trump administration respond? (3/27/17)
The ACA is safe for now, but it’s still very much in danger (3/25/17)
Beyond the numbers: What’s it like to have an unplanned pregnancy? (3/17/17)
Insurance losses under proposed ACA replacement a matter of life and death (3/15/17)
AHCA would slash Medicaid while giving tax cuts to the rich (3/13/17)



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2pAtIAc

Back in March, House Republicans pulled the unpopular and highly problematic American Health Care Act from consideration, and House Minority Leader Paul Ryan declared “Obamacare is the law of the land.” Now, however House Republicans are trying again to undo the Affordable Care Act. Last week, Representative Tom MacArthur (R-NJ) introduced an amendment designed to win over the hard-line House Freedom Caucus, who opposed the original AHCA because it didn’t do enough to roll back existing law.

As the New York Times’ Margot Sanger-Katz summarizes, the amendment would allow states to receive waivers to:

  • Replace the essential health benefits standards with their own standards (e.g., to eliminate the requirement that insurers cover maternity benefits, prescription drugs, etc. — see Kim Krisberg’s post for more);
  • Charge higher premiums to customers with high health needs who had experienced a lapse of coverage lasting more than 63 days (i.e., end community rating for those without continuous coverage); and
  • Charge older people up to five times as much as younger people, instead of the ACA’s 3:1 limit (i.e., modify the ACA’s age rating provision).

Sanger-Katz explains: “Broadly speaking, states with such waivers would be worse for Americans with more complex health care needs, but would have lower insurance premiums for people without a history of illness.” Of course, many of us start our adult lives without a history of significant illness, but become more expensive to insurers as we age or bear children. So, someone getting a good deal under this version of the AHCA in 2018 could easily find premiums skyrocketing a few years later – a problem the Affordable Care Act was specifically designed to address.

States that receive waivers would have to set up high risk pools if they get a waiver that allows insurers to charge higher premiums to sicker customers, Sanger-Katz notes. When states set up high-risk pools in the past, though, many faced spiraling costs. Minnesota’s pre-ACA high-risk pool was widely considered one of the best, but MPRNews’s Mark Zdechlik reported that it needed large subsidies and still left many consumers facing costs that were far too high:

Craig Britton of Plymouth, Minn., once had a plan through the state’s high-risk pool. It cost him $18,000 a year in premiums.

Britton was forced to buy the expensive MCHA coverage because of a pancreatitis diagnosis. He calls the idea that high-risk pools are good for consumers “a lot of baloney.”

“That is catastrophic cost,” Britton says. “You have to have a good living just to pay for insurance.”

And that’s the problem with high-risk pools, says Stefan Gildemeister, an economist with Minnesota’s health department.

“It’s not cheap coverage to the individual, and it’s not cheap coverage to the system,” Gildemeister says.

MCHA’s monthly premiums cost policy holders 25 percent more than conventional coverage, Gildemeister points out, and that left many people uninsured in Minnesota.

“There were people out there who had a chronic disease or had a pre-existing condition who couldn’t get a policy,” Gildemeister says.

And for the MCHA, even the higher premiums fell far short of covering the full cost of care for the roughly 25,000 people who were insured by the program. It needed more than $173 million in subsidies in its final year of normal operation.

The American Hospital Association, American Medical Association, and American Association of Retired Persons have all denounced the revised GOP proposal, The Hill’s Peter Sullivan reports. Vox’s Sarah Kliff points out that the parts of the ACA that states would be able to drop under the new amendment are among the most population provisions; 70% of those responding to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll support requiring all states to protect those with pre-existing conditions, and 62% approve of requiring essential health benefits.

Allowing states to get waivers for essential health benefits, community rating, and age rating requirements of the ACA would be in addition to what the AHCA already would do to slash Medicaid and shrink subsidies for all but the youngest low-incomes purchasers of marketplace plans, resulting in an estimated 24 million people losing insurance. The original AHCA, as Kim Krisberg noted, “will cause unnecessary suffering and death.” With this amendment, a bill that was already bad for public health has become even worse.

Related Posts
The ACA marketplace is beginning to stabilize. But it can’t withstand federal sabotage. (4/21/17)
Playing politics with women’s health (4/3/17)
After GOPcare collapse, how will Trump administration respond? (3/27/17)
The ACA is safe for now, but it’s still very much in danger (3/25/17)
Beyond the numbers: What’s it like to have an unplanned pregnancy? (3/17/17)
Insurance losses under proposed ACA replacement a matter of life and death (3/15/17)
AHCA would slash Medicaid while giving tax cuts to the rich (3/13/17)



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2pAtIAc

Honestly, New York Times? You are entitled to publish all the opinions, but not to endorse your own facts! [Greg Laden's Blog]

Honestly, it is hard to have an honest conversation about science with science obstructors or deniers. That is how you know you are conversing with a denier. You try to have the conversation, and it gets derailed by cherry picking, misdirection, faux misunderstanding, or lies.

I don’t care how far a person is from understanding a scientific concept or finding. I don’t care how complex and nuanced such a finding is. As long as the science is in an area that I comfortable with as a scientist, educator, and science communicator, I’ll take up the challenge of transforming scientific mumbo jumbo into normal descriptive language or an appropriate story, so the person gets from not having a clue to getting the basic idea. That’s for regular people having an honest conversation, which generally includes students.

But that is often not how it goes.

A common theme in the non-honest conversation is false balance. The fact that there is an opposing view, regardless of its merits or lack of merit, is sufficient to insist that that view be on the table and given a fair hearing. Someone recently said that global warming is not real because CO2 molecules are the same temperature as the other molecules in the atmosphere, an utterly irrelevant thing meant to confuse and misdirect. That statement is not a required part of an honest conversation, it is utterly non-honest, and should be ignored as nefarious yammering. But, we often see media giving equal weight to such yammering, ignoring the motives behind it.

You already know that the New York Times has hired an OpEd columnist who has a history of denial of science, including climate science. He also has a history of analyses of social or political things that has offended a lot of people.

When pressed to reconsider, by the scientific community widespread, the New York Times responded that lots of people agree with this columnist about climate change, therefore his hire is legit. Here, the New York Times is guilty of false balance, of giving credence to senseless yammering as though it was the same as real science.

I personally don’t like the idea of having a lot of far right wing (or even medium right wing) columnists in a publication that I pay for, so I don’t subscribe to such publications. But, major national media outlets are going to have a range of columnists and commenters, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. That is why I am happy to subscribe to the Washington Post even though there are a few right wing columnists there.

But here’s the thing. A columnist with a hard right viewpoint is one thing. An Editorial Staff that allows columnists, of any political stripe, to abuse reality and misstate facts about science in order to make a political point is incompetent.

Readers should expect editors to strictly enforce the concept that columnists are very much entitled to their own opinions, but in no way entitled to their own facts. The New York Times is making the mistake of confusing objections to this columnist with an attempt to silence a particular point of view. That is not what it is. Rather, the objections are to the New York Times editorial policy, on the OpEd page, supporting alt-facts.

The facts at risk of denigration and dismissal here are widely accepted and established, usually. In some cases, there are uncertainties that are dishonestly exploited and incorrectly characterized, which is pretty much the same thing as trying to have one’s opinions and one’s facts at the same time: not valid commentary and bad journalistic practice. This particular columnist has exploited the fact that there is variation in nature to assert that there is variation in scientific opinion. This is a misreading of both nature and science, coming from someone who knows little about either, and that misreading is being sanctioned by the people who run the New York Times.

I don’t care, and I think most don’t care, if he New York Times has a right winger like Bret Stephens on the OpEd staff. But if the editors of that section of this news outlet allow this individual or any columnist to misrepresent important aspects of reality, as he very much did in his very first column just out, then that editorial staff is acting unprofessionally and should probably look for a job at one of those entertainment outlets that disguises itself as “news.”

I’m pretty sure that at this time the editors at the New York Times do not understand this distinction. Keep your conservative columnist, Grey Lady, that’s up to you. Some will like that, some will not. But do know that you can’t keep being thought of as the paper of record if you allow frequent and unchecked abuse of facts and reality within that discourse. That is just a bad idea, beneath such a widely respected publication, and I and others expect it to stop soon.



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2qpiGfb

Honestly, it is hard to have an honest conversation about science with science obstructors or deniers. That is how you know you are conversing with a denier. You try to have the conversation, and it gets derailed by cherry picking, misdirection, faux misunderstanding, or lies.

I don’t care how far a person is from understanding a scientific concept or finding. I don’t care how complex and nuanced such a finding is. As long as the science is in an area that I comfortable with as a scientist, educator, and science communicator, I’ll take up the challenge of transforming scientific mumbo jumbo into normal descriptive language or an appropriate story, so the person gets from not having a clue to getting the basic idea. That’s for regular people having an honest conversation, which generally includes students.

But that is often not how it goes.

A common theme in the non-honest conversation is false balance. The fact that there is an opposing view, regardless of its merits or lack of merit, is sufficient to insist that that view be on the table and given a fair hearing. Someone recently said that global warming is not real because CO2 molecules are the same temperature as the other molecules in the atmosphere, an utterly irrelevant thing meant to confuse and misdirect. That statement is not a required part of an honest conversation, it is utterly non-honest, and should be ignored as nefarious yammering. But, we often see media giving equal weight to such yammering, ignoring the motives behind it.

You already know that the New York Times has hired an OpEd columnist who has a history of denial of science, including climate science. He also has a history of analyses of social or political things that has offended a lot of people.

When pressed to reconsider, by the scientific community widespread, the New York Times responded that lots of people agree with this columnist about climate change, therefore his hire is legit. Here, the New York Times is guilty of false balance, of giving credence to senseless yammering as though it was the same as real science.

I personally don’t like the idea of having a lot of far right wing (or even medium right wing) columnists in a publication that I pay for, so I don’t subscribe to such publications. But, major national media outlets are going to have a range of columnists and commenters, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. That is why I am happy to subscribe to the Washington Post even though there are a few right wing columnists there.

But here’s the thing. A columnist with a hard right viewpoint is one thing. An Editorial Staff that allows columnists, of any political stripe, to abuse reality and misstate facts about science in order to make a political point is incompetent.

Readers should expect editors to strictly enforce the concept that columnists are very much entitled to their own opinions, but in no way entitled to their own facts. The New York Times is making the mistake of confusing objections to this columnist with an attempt to silence a particular point of view. That is not what it is. Rather, the objections are to the New York Times editorial policy, on the OpEd page, supporting alt-facts.

The facts at risk of denigration and dismissal here are widely accepted and established, usually. In some cases, there are uncertainties that are dishonestly exploited and incorrectly characterized, which is pretty much the same thing as trying to have one’s opinions and one’s facts at the same time: not valid commentary and bad journalistic practice. This particular columnist has exploited the fact that there is variation in nature to assert that there is variation in scientific opinion. This is a misreading of both nature and science, coming from someone who knows little about either, and that misreading is being sanctioned by the people who run the New York Times.

I don’t care, and I think most don’t care, if he New York Times has a right winger like Bret Stephens on the OpEd staff. But if the editors of that section of this news outlet allow this individual or any columnist to misrepresent important aspects of reality, as he very much did in his very first column just out, then that editorial staff is acting unprofessionally and should probably look for a job at one of those entertainment outlets that disguises itself as “news.”

I’m pretty sure that at this time the editors at the New York Times do not understand this distinction. Keep your conservative columnist, Grey Lady, that’s up to you. Some will like that, some will not. But do know that you can’t keep being thought of as the paper of record if you allow frequent and unchecked abuse of facts and reality within that discourse. That is just a bad idea, beneath such a widely respected publication, and I and others expect it to stop soon.



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2qpiGfb

SkS Team - Marching for Science around the globe

Many articles have already been written about the recent March for Science - Dana's Guardian post "March against madness" being a case in point. So, this one will not have a lot of words and will let the collages put together from the marches where members from our Skeptical Science team participated in speak for themselves. Where available, you'll also find links to the respective march's homepage. Enjoy!

Sou marched in Melbourne (and has a blog post on HotWhopper about it):

SkS-M4S-Sou

Baerbel joined the rally in Stuttgart (organiser's Flickr album) and the march in Tübingen (video from the event) in southern Germany:

SkS-M4S-Baerbel

Ian joined the march in London (more of Ian's pictures in his album on Facebook):

SkS-M4S-Ian

Ken marched in Edinburgh (more pictures on the organisers' Facebook page):

SkS-M4S-Ken

John set his sights on creative signs at the march in Washington D.C. (and recorded several comments for episode 9 of Evidence Squared while there):

SkS-M4S-John

Sarah lucked out with the weather in Houghton, Michigan:

SkS-M4S-Sarah

David marched in St. Louis (the organisers posted many pictures on their Facebook page)

SkS-M4S-David

Doug was taking a shower in Seattle:

SkS-M4S-Doug

Here is to a likewise successful March for Climate on April 29!



from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/2qvCOv9

Many articles have already been written about the recent March for Science - Dana's Guardian post "March against madness" being a case in point. So, this one will not have a lot of words and will let the collages put together from the marches where members from our Skeptical Science team participated in speak for themselves. Where available, you'll also find links to the respective march's homepage. Enjoy!

Sou marched in Melbourne (and has a blog post on HotWhopper about it):

SkS-M4S-Sou

Baerbel joined the rally in Stuttgart (organiser's Flickr album) and the march in Tübingen (video from the event) in southern Germany:

SkS-M4S-Baerbel

Ian joined the march in London (more of Ian's pictures in his album on Facebook):

SkS-M4S-Ian

Ken marched in Edinburgh (more pictures on the organisers' Facebook page):

SkS-M4S-Ken

John set his sights on creative signs at the march in Washington D.C. (and recorded several comments for episode 9 of Evidence Squared while there):

SkS-M4S-John

Sarah lucked out with the weather in Houghton, Michigan:

SkS-M4S-Sarah

David marched in St. Louis (the organisers posted many pictures on their Facebook page)

SkS-M4S-David

Doug was taking a shower in Seattle:

SkS-M4S-Doug

Here is to a likewise successful March for Climate on April 29!



from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/2qvCOv9