Sunday, May 18, 2008
Friday, May 16, 2008
Movie and Popcorn Good for Your Health?
Reuters HealthMay 16, 2008
Popcorn Fans Eat More Whole Grain: Study
People who snack on popcorn may consume more whole grains and less meat than their peers who don't, new research shows.
Fewer than 10 percent of Americans meet current dietary guidelines recommending they eat at least three servings of whole grain foods each day, Dr. Ann C. Grandjean of The Center for Human Nutrition in Omaha, Nebraska and her colleagues note the Journal of the American Dietetic Association. Popcorn is a whole-grain product and whole grains have been tied to a number of health benefits, including reduced heart disease and diabetes risk, they add.
To investigate the role of popcorn in the US diet, Grandjean and her team looked at data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 1999-2002, in which a nationally representative sample of 15,506 Americans reported what they had eaten in the past 24 hours.
Six percent of the study participants had eaten popcorn in the past day. On average, popcorn eaters consumed 38.8 grams (about 12 cups) of popcorn per day.
Compared with people who did not eat popcorn, those that did had roughly 250 percent higher intake of whole grains (2.5 versus 0.70 servings per day) and approximately 22 percent higher intake of fiber (18.1 versus 14.9 grams per day), the researchers found.
Popcorn eaters also had higher overall grain consumption and lower meat consumption.
Popcorn eaters also got more magnesium and carbohydrates than non-popcorn eaters. While people who ate popcorn consumed less protein, niacin and folate, they were still getting enough of these nutrients based on Institute of Medicine requirements.
There was no relationship between eating popcorn and heart disease risk factors such as obesity and high cholesterol, the researchers found.
"The present findings support that popcorn may offer a healthful alternative to high-energy-dense, low-nutrient-dense snacks," Grandjean and her colleagues say.
More studies are needed, they conclude, to confirm the findings and to determine if eating popcorn can indeed help increase people's whole grain intake over time.
ConAgra Foods, which makes several brands of popcorn, funded the study.
Reuters HealthMay 16, 2008
Popcorn Fans Eat More Whole Grain: Study
People who snack on popcorn may consume more whole grains and less meat than their peers who don't, new research shows.
Fewer than 10 percent of Americans meet current dietary guidelines recommending they eat at least three servings of whole grain foods each day, Dr. Ann C. Grandjean of The Center for Human Nutrition in Omaha, Nebraska and her colleagues note the Journal of the American Dietetic Association. Popcorn is a whole-grain product and whole grains have been tied to a number of health benefits, including reduced heart disease and diabetes risk, they add.
To investigate the role of popcorn in the US diet, Grandjean and her team looked at data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 1999-2002, in which a nationally representative sample of 15,506 Americans reported what they had eaten in the past 24 hours.
Six percent of the study participants had eaten popcorn in the past day. On average, popcorn eaters consumed 38.8 grams (about 12 cups) of popcorn per day.
Compared with people who did not eat popcorn, those that did had roughly 250 percent higher intake of whole grains (2.5 versus 0.70 servings per day) and approximately 22 percent higher intake of fiber (18.1 versus 14.9 grams per day), the researchers found.
Popcorn eaters also had higher overall grain consumption and lower meat consumption.
Popcorn eaters also got more magnesium and carbohydrates than non-popcorn eaters. While people who ate popcorn consumed less protein, niacin and folate, they were still getting enough of these nutrients based on Institute of Medicine requirements.
There was no relationship between eating popcorn and heart disease risk factors such as obesity and high cholesterol, the researchers found.
"The present findings support that popcorn may offer a healthful alternative to high-energy-dense, low-nutrient-dense snacks," Grandjean and her colleagues say.
More studies are needed, they conclude, to confirm the findings and to determine if eating popcorn can indeed help increase people's whole grain intake over time.
ConAgra Foods, which makes several brands of popcorn, funded the study.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Some Get Hitched for Health Benefits
Detroit NewsMay 01, 2008
Poll finds 7 percent of Americans married to obtain insurance through their spouse.
Some people marry for love, some for companionship and others for status or money. Now comes another reason to get hitched: health insurance.
In a poll released this week, 7 percent of Americans said they or someone in their household decided to marry in the past year so they could obtain health-care benefits via their spouse.
"It's a small number, but a powerful result, because it shows how paying for health care is reflected not only in family budgets but in life decisions," said Drew Altman, president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which commissioned the survey as part of its regular polling on health care.
On a broader scale, the survey found that health-care costs outranked housing costs, rising food prices and credit card bills as a source of concern.
Of those surveyed, 28 percent said they had experienced serious problems because of the cost of health care, nearly tied with 29 percent who had problems getting a good job or a raise.
Gas prices were the top economic worry, with 44 percent saying they had serious problems keeping up with increases at the pump.
A companion poll also detected an important shift among voters: Independents in particular say they are more concerned about reducing medical costs than about increasing the number of Americans with health insurance.
In the latest Kaiser poll, 46 percent of independents said the presidential candidates should deal with costs first, and 25 percent said expanding health coverage for the 47 million uninsured people should come next.
The Kaiser polls, conducted April 3-13, surveyed a nationally representative sample of 2,003 adults and have a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Poll finds 7 percent of Americans married to obtain insurance through their spouse.
Some people marry for love, some for companionship and others for status or money. Now comes another reason to get hitched: health insurance.
In a poll released this week, 7 percent of Americans said they or someone in their household decided to marry in the past year so they could obtain health-care benefits via their spouse.
"It's a small number, but a powerful result, because it shows how paying for health care is reflected not only in family budgets but in life decisions," said Drew Altman, president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which commissioned the survey as part of its regular polling on health care.
On a broader scale, the survey found that health-care costs outranked housing costs, rising food prices and credit card bills as a source of concern.
Of those surveyed, 28 percent said they had experienced serious problems because of the cost of health care, nearly tied with 29 percent who had problems getting a good job or a raise.
Gas prices were the top economic worry, with 44 percent saying they had serious problems keeping up with increases at the pump.
A companion poll also detected an important shift among voters: Independents in particular say they are more concerned about reducing medical costs than about increasing the number of Americans with health insurance.
In the latest Kaiser poll, 46 percent of independents said the presidential candidates should deal with costs first, and 25 percent said expanding health coverage for the 47 million uninsured people should come next.
The Kaiser polls, conducted April 3-13, surveyed a nationally representative sample of 2,003 adults and have a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Court Case could be watershed for benefit claims
By Leah Carlson Shepherd
April 15, 2008
The Supreme Court plans to hear a case that could have widespread ramifications for employee benefit plans and insurers across the country.
In MetLife vs. Glenn, the justices will consider how courts should weigh the apparent conflict of interest when the same benefits administrator is authorized to both pay the benefits and determine eligibility for the benefits.
The decision would apply to ERISA-governed plans, such as health, life and disability coverage. At press time, the Court had agreed to hear the case, but had not yet set a date for a hearing.
David Godofsky, a partner at the law firm Alston and Bird, comments, "It could really have a broad impact. This is a very big case, a very important one. It has the possibility of dramatically changing the landscape in either direction as far as how claims are handled."
If the Supreme Court decides the conflict of interest should be granted a lot of weight in court decisions, "companies would really have to reorganize the way they handle benefit claims. That would take a huge amount of effort. It would maybe create a whole new business for third-party administrators of benefit plans," he says.
On the other hand, he says if the justices decide that the conflict of interest doesn't deserve a lot of weight, "employers may have a lot to gain here. There may be coming out of this a very strong statement that strengthens the employer" and benefit administrator. Up until now, the conflict of interest "has been given some weight, but not a lot of weight" in past court decisions, he says.
Tom McCord, a partner with the law firm Nixon Peabody, explains, "The insurers and administrators have a duty to follow the plan documents and explain their decisions, and those procedural safeguards have been deemed to be enough to overcome any presumption that a conflict of interest taints the decision-making."
Disability case
According to court documents, the plaintiff, Wanda Glenn, worked for Sears Roebuck from 1986 to 2000, when she filed a disability claim indicating that she had been diagnosed with a disease that causes the heart to become enlarged and pump inadequately. In letters to MetLife, her doctor said work-related psychological stress would exacerbate her heart problem, even if the work was sedentary.
As a benefit administrator, MetLife approved the disability claim for two years, but terminated Glenn's benefits in 2003, saying that she didn't meet the plan's criteria for long-term disability. It said the records she submitted did not prove that her heart problem would prevent her from doing full-time, sedentary work, according to court documents.
Meanwhile, in 2000, a Social Security judge ruled that she was totally disabled and entitled to Social Security disability benefits.
Glenn sued MetLife in U.S. District Court in Cincinnati, which agreed with the insurer, saying that the decision to terminate benefits was not arbitrary and capricious. Later, Glenn appealed to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in her favor.
"We are entitled to take into account the existence of a conflict of interest that results when, as in this case, the plan administrator that decides whether an employee is eligible for benefits is also obligated to pay those benefits," Circuit Judge Martha Crag Daughtrey wrote.
"MetLife's decision to deny long-term benefits in this case was not the product of a principled and deliberative reasoning process," she added. "MetLife acted under a conflict of interest and also in unacknowledged conflict with the determination of disability by the Social Security Administration. In denying benefits, it offered no explanation for crediting a brief form filled out by [Glenn's doctor] while overlooking his detailed reports. This inappropriately selective consideration of Glenn's medical record was compounded by the fact that the occupational skills analyst and the independent medical consultant were apparently not provided with full information from [Glenn's doctor] on which to base their conclusions."
Daughtrey concluded: "There was no adequate basis for the plan administrator's decision not to factor in one of the major considerations in Glenn's pathology, that of the role that stress played in aggravating her condition and in preventing her return to [work]. Taken together, these factors reflect a decision by MetLife that can only be described as arbitrary and capricious."
Following that decision, MetLife appealed to the Supreme Court.
April 15, 2008
The Supreme Court plans to hear a case that could have widespread ramifications for employee benefit plans and insurers across the country.
In MetLife vs. Glenn, the justices will consider how courts should weigh the apparent conflict of interest when the same benefits administrator is authorized to both pay the benefits and determine eligibility for the benefits.
The decision would apply to ERISA-governed plans, such as health, life and disability coverage. At press time, the Court had agreed to hear the case, but had not yet set a date for a hearing.
David Godofsky, a partner at the law firm Alston and Bird, comments, "It could really have a broad impact. This is a very big case, a very important one. It has the possibility of dramatically changing the landscape in either direction as far as how claims are handled."
If the Supreme Court decides the conflict of interest should be granted a lot of weight in court decisions, "companies would really have to reorganize the way they handle benefit claims. That would take a huge amount of effort. It would maybe create a whole new business for third-party administrators of benefit plans," he says.
On the other hand, he says if the justices decide that the conflict of interest doesn't deserve a lot of weight, "employers may have a lot to gain here. There may be coming out of this a very strong statement that strengthens the employer" and benefit administrator. Up until now, the conflict of interest "has been given some weight, but not a lot of weight" in past court decisions, he says.
Tom McCord, a partner with the law firm Nixon Peabody, explains, "The insurers and administrators have a duty to follow the plan documents and explain their decisions, and those procedural safeguards have been deemed to be enough to overcome any presumption that a conflict of interest taints the decision-making."
Disability case
According to court documents, the plaintiff, Wanda Glenn, worked for Sears Roebuck from 1986 to 2000, when she filed a disability claim indicating that she had been diagnosed with a disease that causes the heart to become enlarged and pump inadequately. In letters to MetLife, her doctor said work-related psychological stress would exacerbate her heart problem, even if the work was sedentary.
As a benefit administrator, MetLife approved the disability claim for two years, but terminated Glenn's benefits in 2003, saying that she didn't meet the plan's criteria for long-term disability. It said the records she submitted did not prove that her heart problem would prevent her from doing full-time, sedentary work, according to court documents.
Meanwhile, in 2000, a Social Security judge ruled that she was totally disabled and entitled to Social Security disability benefits.
Glenn sued MetLife in U.S. District Court in Cincinnati, which agreed with the insurer, saying that the decision to terminate benefits was not arbitrary and capricious. Later, Glenn appealed to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in her favor.
"We are entitled to take into account the existence of a conflict of interest that results when, as in this case, the plan administrator that decides whether an employee is eligible for benefits is also obligated to pay those benefits," Circuit Judge Martha Crag Daughtrey wrote.
"MetLife's decision to deny long-term benefits in this case was not the product of a principled and deliberative reasoning process," she added. "MetLife acted under a conflict of interest and also in unacknowledged conflict with the determination of disability by the Social Security Administration. In denying benefits, it offered no explanation for crediting a brief form filled out by [Glenn's doctor] while overlooking his detailed reports. This inappropriately selective consideration of Glenn's medical record was compounded by the fact that the occupational skills analyst and the independent medical consultant were apparently not provided with full information from [Glenn's doctor] on which to base their conclusions."
Daughtrey concluded: "There was no adequate basis for the plan administrator's decision not to factor in one of the major considerations in Glenn's pathology, that of the role that stress played in aggravating her condition and in preventing her return to [work]. Taken together, these factors reflect a decision by MetLife that can only be described as arbitrary and capricious."
Following that decision, MetLife appealed to the Supreme Court.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)