Author: Staff Writers

The Catnap and Diabetes: Health professionals have advocated the occasional power nap to help individuals gain clarity and focus. Naps have been touted as an excellent source of gaining improved efficiency. Businesses have even been encouraged to allow their staff the opportunity to power nap in an effort to boost productivity.

Proponents of the power nap will even cite the fact that Leonardo da Vinci, Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison were all nappers – and they were brilliant men of science and art. Even famed British politician Winston Churchill once said, “You must sleep sometime between lunch and dinner… Don’t think you will be doing less work because you sleep during the day. That’s a foolish notion held by people who have no imaginations. You will be able to accomplish more. You get two days in one — well, at least one and a half, I’m sure.”

NASA researchers have shown that a nap of just under half an hour can boost ‘working memory’ by 34%.

Researchers have indicated naps that exceed half an hour can actually leave you lethargic and with a bad temperament.

And while many companies are implementing nap friendly policies there is new evidence to suggest there might be something else at work when you nap – something that may cause other long-term complications.

Diabetes UK reports, “Researchers at the University of Birmingham looked at the napping habits of 16,480 people and found that diabetes prevalence increased with napping frequency, and those who napped had a 26 per cent greater risk of developing Type 2 diabetes compared to those who never napped.”

Researchers best guesstimate as to why this may be true are linked to the following three possibilities.

• Daytime naps interfere with nighttime sleep patterns.
• Shorter nighttime sleep sessions are already tied to an increased Type 2 diabetic risk.
• Diabetes UK says, “Waking up from napping activates hormones and mechanisms in the body that stop insulin working effectively.”

Dr Iain Frame, Director of Research at Diabetes UK indicates, “We know from previous studies, which looked at the link between disturbed night sleep patterns and the risk of developing Type 2 diabetes, that interrupted sleep at night could increase the risk of developing Type 2 diabetes.”

Napping in Perspective
While Diabetes UK research provides a new wrinkle in the issue of napping it is important to note that napping may be much less of an issue than, “…being overweight, being over the age of 40 or having a history of diabetes in the family.”

In other words, the primary message of most diabetic organizations remains the same – concentrate more on physical activity and managed care.

It might be interesting to know how this new information fits with power nap objectives. What we don’t know from this report is how long the individuals napped. Is there a difference between a nap of 30 minutes and one that lasts an hour or more?

Simply knowing that napping can have an effect on the potential for onset diabetes should engage researchers in further study so questions like the ones posed above can have answers.

As with other scientific discoveries this one conflicts with earlier findings. It may take time to develop appropriate research to provide the best indication of the usefulness of a nap versus the potential for diabetes development.

Diabetes and a Cheap Food Supply: There is a current ideological argument between professor Michael Pollan and various agricultural interests. This argument speculates as to the fundamental reasons for obesity in America and the subsequent rise in Type 2 diabetes and other chronic illnesses.

Pollan argues that cheap corn has only served to increase the girth of Americans while serving as a detriment to greenhouse gas emissions. His argument essentially is that food prices should be raised making it prudent to cut down on the amount of food you eat.

Agricultural interests contend that their industry cannot be blamed for the choices of consumers. The customer has demanded more and suppliers have simply done what good businesses have always done – work to supply the demand. Restaurant meals in the 1970’s were much smaller in total size than they are today.

Pollan contends Americans have moved to consuming more beef while eating fewer fruits and vegetables since the 1980’s. However, research indicates overall red meat consumption is down 15% during that time period while vegetable intake was up 23%.

I suppose this argument is a bit like a consumer suing a fast food restaurant for coffee that is too hot or food with too many calories. The point is consumers have a choice and they must bear some responsibility for their choice.

Positive portion control has always been the friend of the American consumer. Sometimes we may have trouble managing our appetite, but the truth is we don’t have to eat everything on our plate – even if we were told to do so as a child. You can bag up the leftovers for another meal if you like.

You can also order items ala cart and skip the fries. You can choose iced tea (sugarless) over soda options and you don’t have to have mayo or ranch on your burgers or chicken.

America has done a great job at providing consumers multiple choices. Consumers simply need to work at making better and more informed food intake decisions.

Diabetes is a terrible disease and we should do what we can to avoid placing ourselves at risk, but in the present economy it is hard to make sense of an idea that asks the government to work at inflating the price of food.

There are, of course, multiple issues involved in this debate, but it is interesting to see the lack of discussion related to personal choice.

It’s not unheard of to find a couple eating at a restaurant and simply sharing one meal. Sometimes they will not be able to finish the meal between them. This is an example of wise consuming.

We have more workout facilities than ever, but there are always more members not using those facilities on a regular basis than those who are.

The work many of us involve ourselves in is behind a computer or sitting at a desk most of the day. We get very little exercise and we’re generally in a hurry because our schedule is too full of things to do and people to see.

Is it possible that our lifestyle choices have more to do with the epidemic of diabetes than a cheap food supply?

What we do know is that the growth of diabetes is alarming and the costs associated with its care are enormous. No one can make you exercise or eat right, but your body will be much better off if you will. This is true about diabetes prevention efforts and it is true about self-managed care once the disease has been diagnosed.

Prediabetes Testing News: There are a couple of newsworthy stories that provide evidence that diabetes screening can take place in ways and places not previously used.

The first story deals with a breath analyzer test. The medical journal Diabetes Care indicated their researchers have made recommendations that “…this testing method is a novel way to detect pre-diabetes and early stage diabetes in a non-invasive way. This may be an ideal method for the large-scale testing of people who are at high risk for diabetes, and will be especially attractive in the testing of children who generally find blood extraction painful.”

The University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston used this new method on 17 patients. Researchers tested with both conventional blood-testing methods as well as through the breath analyzer. What they discovered was the exact same results in side-by-side comparisons, but without the need to draw blood in the second scenario.

Seven of the 17 patients tested positive for early stage diabetes. Results are available within an hour of testing. Researchers indicate this process could allow for mass testing in large populations while not being invasive or intimidating.

Meanwhile TulsaWorld.com recently reported on new diabetes blood testing taking place at Oklahoma Blood Institute (OBI). This testing procedure is part of a trial program paid for with grant funds.

OBI already provides free cholesterol screenings for all who donate blood. They also provide specific prostate screenings at a reduced price for blood donors.

The diabetes testing is limited to those who fall in an age range of 17-30 targeting blood donors in high school and college. The reason this testing is offered only to this age group has to do with the fact that many in this age category would not likely get tested believing that diabetes is a disease for someone older. Further, officials from OBI said, “We wanted to focus initially on those who have potentially a lifetime of good health ahead of them.”

More than 1,500 donors have been screened since the program started in August 2008. One donor was surprised to learn diabetes was present and many others who already knew they were diabetic were made aware that their diabetes was out of control. There were 117 donors who had elevated blood glucose levels that can be an early indicator of diabetes development. These individuals were encouraged to follow up with their primary care physician.

Swiss pharmaceutical company Roche along with Fenwal Blood Technologies provided the grants and testing supplies needed for this trial. It is unknown if OBI will be able to continue the diabetes screenings on a long-term basis for their blood supply donors, but for now one of the largest nonprofit regional blood centers in the country is providing a value added bonus for those volunteer to provide blood products that can be used to save countless other lives.

In both diabetes screening cases there is the potential to catch early signs of diabetes and work at management issues before the diabetes is out of control. It is easy to envision a time when breath analyzer tests can be administered in a school setting quickly and without pain or administered in a doctor’s office as part of a routine exam.

The reason this may be important is that in many cases individuals who have diabetes may often not be aware of its presence until an issue involving hospitalization brings the issue to light. Knowing early can allow the individual to make lifestyle changes that will positively impact their future.

The Role of PCB’s in Diabetes: Two recent studies indicate that PCB’s may account for some of the increase in diabetes. In order to understand how PCB’s can affect the human body we need to define them first. According to UrbanEdPartnership.org PCB’s (polychlorinated biphenyls) are, “A group of toxic chemicals. These are used for industrial products such as fluorescent lights and electrical transformers. They are very poisonous. They are not easily biodegradable and can remain in our environment for hundreds of years.”

The use of PCB’s was banned in the 1970s. However, to understand the long-term effects of the chemicals we may benefit from a review of a disease that is entirely separate from diabetes – mesothelioma.

Asbestos was used in multiple industrial applications until it, too, was banned for use in new products in the 1970’s. Workers who handled and breathed the substance often developed lung ailments. Many have died from the lung cancer, mesothelioma. In the case of this disease it can take 20-50 years for the carcinogenic effects to be known following exposure. Again, this information is about mesothelioma, but it might help in understanding the long-term implications of PCB’s for diabetics.

According to a report from Diabetes Care Taiwanese researchers, “Compared the occurrence of Type 2 diabetes among 378 Taiwanese women who had been exposed to PCB-contaminated cooking oil in the 1970s with its occurrence among 370 non-exposed neighbors. They found that after 24 years, women who had been exposed to the contaminated oil had twice the risk of diabetes as non-exposed women. The women who had been exposed to the highest PCB levels had five times the diabetes risk.”

Interestingly the same study could find no direct correlation between PCB exposure and the incidence of diabetes in men. NaturalNews.com may provide an answer by saying, “PCBs are persistent organic pollutants, meaning that they accumulate in the body and resist breakdown by environmental factors. They have been known to accumulate in human blood, breast milk and body fat, and are known to damage the hormonal, immune, nervous and reproductive system. PCBs are also carcinogens and estrogen mimics.”

With the broad staying power of PCB’s in our environment this does pose a concern as expressed by a second report by researchers from SUNY Upstate Medical University. This research concentrated on residence in Alabama who live near an industrial area where PCB’s were dumped illegally in the 1970’s.

Blood tests were given and PCB levels were examined. What researchers learned was that these residents had levels that were four times higher than the national average. Correspondingly there was also a diabetes incidence 2-4 times that of the national average. This report also allowed the second research study to conclude that exposure to PCB’s could lead to Type 2 diabetes.

Researcher Allen Silverstone who said, “Diabetes is one thing that can happen and that probably happens because these chemicals can affect glucose metabolism”, summed up the reason this may be true.

Silverstone also added, “PCBs are indestructible. They stay in the cell and they keep the receptor turned on. So what you have is a problem when a switch is turned on that should be turned on and off, and that is what raises serious health problems because then the cells get deranged.”

Many health issues seem to have links to environmental causes. This is just one example of support for the idea that there may be additional external forces behind the epidemic rise in diabetes cases.

Popular Schizophrenia Drug Possibly Linked to Diabetes: Diabetes and depression seem to go hand in hand. There have always been questions about whether it is depression that precedes diabetes or if the opposite may be true. In the case of one drug prescribed for psychosis the potential answer may be troubling.

The Washington Post reported last week that the drug Seroquel, used in the treatment of schizophrenia, might have been a substantial contributor to diabetes among many patients using the drug.

In what may be viewed in coming years as the infamous “Study 15” researchers discovered that individuals who took the drug gained an average of 11 pounds annually. Drug maker AstraZeneca International only shared these original findings with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA, in turn, only evaluated the effectiveness of the drug in treating schizophrenia – not the potential side effects the drug might cause.

Critics now indicate that Seroquel may not be substantially better at treating schizophrenia than a less expensive and older counterpart known as Haldol. This older prescription caused involuntary muscle movements. The newer Seroquel seemed to affect the body on a metabolic level.

What has troubled many is that the reports that AstraZeneca have released indicate that patients who use their drug have actually lost weight. The FDA has asked the company to stop making misleading comments about the drug in their marketing pitches.

Study 15 was funded by taxpayers and has come to light more than 12 years after the original research was concluded. Reports indicate AstraZeneca has received more than $4 billion annually from the sale of Seroquel in recent years.

More than 9,000 legal cases have been filed against AstraZeneca related to these most recent findings. Doctors were not made aware of the findings of the research until recently, although it does appear that as many as 82% of Seroquel users stop using the drug within 18 months of original prescription.

Weight gain, hyperglycemia and diabetes have proven to be the basis for thousands of the lawsuits currently in the court system.

This information is especially disconcerting given the epidemic of diabetes cases in the US. Diabetes has been linked with both depression and weight gain. The side effects of Seroquel may have been diminished in the past, but these recent lawsuits combined with the findings in the original Study 15 report are providing many patients with ample reason to investigate other viable alternatives.

The Washington Post article (A Silenced Drug Study Causes an Uproar) indicated, “Eight years after Study 15 was buried, an expensive taxpayer-funded study pitted Seroquel and other new drugs against another older antipsychotic drug. The study found that most patients getting the new and supposedly safer drugs stopped taking them because of intolerable side effects. The study also found that the new drugs had few advantages. As with older drugs, the new medications had very high discontinuation rates. The results caused consternation among doctors, who had been kept in the dark about trials such as Study 15.”

A Kaiser Family Foundation reports suggests, “Internal documents show that in 1999 John Tumas, the head of the AstraZeneca team tasked with getting articles published, defended “cherry picking” data.” This research seems to disregard the potential contribution of the drug to the development of Type 2 diabetes while highlighting a suspect report that actually indicated a weight loss – a report that did not have the backing of previous research findings on Seroquel.

If you are using Seroquel and have concerns you should visit with your health care provider about all options that may be available.

Diabetes and Blocked Arteries: New Research: USNews.com reports that there is now substantial evidence to indicate a specific treatment preference in diabetics with heart conditions. Let’s take a look at the two prevailing types of procedures when arteries clog.

Angioplasty
The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute define this process as, “A medical procedure in which a balloon is used to open a blockage in a coronary (heart) artery narrowed by atherosclerosis. This procedure improves blood flow to the heart.”

Heart Bypass
MedlinePlus defines this procedure as one that, “Creates a new route, called a bypass, for blood and oxygen to reach your heart. It is done to fix problems caused by coronary artery disease (CAD), in which the arteries that lead to your heart are partly or totally blocked.”

Which is better for diabetics?
A recent report authored by Dr. Mark Hlatky of Stanford University suggests that after the age of 65 a heart bypass is a highly preferred method of treating blocked arteries among diabetics. The USNews.com article indicates, “People with diabetes were 30 percent less likely to die if they had bypass surgery rather than PCI (Percutaneous coronary intervention). People 65 and older who had bypass surgery had a mortality rate of 20 percent, compared with 24 percent for PCI.”

One potential reason these statistics may be true is that in diabetics the blood vessels can become brittle and an angioplasty may actually serve to harm the vessels to a greater degree than a traditional bypass. Another potential possibility is that many individuals over the age of 65 have more extensive blockage and bypass surgery is generally viewed as most effective in treating this scenario.

This research data is important to a new paradigm in thinking when it comes to managed care. This approach is known as comparative effectiveness research. The goal of this type of study is to find the most effective treatment. This has the potential to decrease the long-term health care costs by looking at the bigger picture and not always the short-term solution. In fact the recent government stimulus package contained over a billion dollars dedicated to research using comparative effectiveness. The goal is to help reduce health care spending by managing long-term needs.

Interestingly there is only a .5% difference between mortality rates in patients that undergo a heart bypass and those who opt for an angioplasty.

It should be noted that this study was built on two factors – age and diabetes. For patients who do not have diabetes the findings may not be applicable.

MedPageToday.com reported that Dr. David P. Taggart, M.D., Ph.D., of Oxford University offered his own bullet points related to the findings.

• For patients with less severe one-vessel or two-vessel disease and normal left ventricular function, “there is little prognostic benefit from any intervention over optimum medical therapy,” and those without diabetes who do need intervention get no obvious survival advantage with either PCI or CABG.
• For patients with more severe coronary artery disease and especially those with diabetes, CABG is superior in terms of survival and freedom from reintervention.
• For interventions in more complex coronary artery disease, a multidisciplinary team approach should be standard of care “to ensure transparency, real patient’s choice, and genuine informed consent in the decision-making process.”
• For elective patients, angiography needs to be separated from intervention “to allow appropriate time to make a truly informed decision.”

This news should allow you to engage in meaningful dialogue with your health care provider should you be diagnosed with artery blockage.

Identifying Barriers to Diabetic Self Management: If you’ve ever wondered what barriers exist for the proper care of individuals living with diabetes then recent research conducted by scientists from Ireland and Hong Kong might help.

The reason for the development of this study has to do with the prevalence of the disease and the rapid growth of diabetes. The World Health Organization indicates that by 2025 there will be 380 million cases of diabetes. Researches wanted to identify the barriers in an effort to address and eliminate as many of those obstacles as possible.

There were 9,000 patients from 28 countries that participated in the study. Here are some of the highlighted obstacles.

• Financial – even if healthcare was free or funded by insurance, patients still had to spend more money on healthy food and transport to and from healthcare appointments.
• Social support – patients who received support from family, friends and diabetes clinics appeared to handle self-care better than those who did not.
• Patient provider gaps – care was more effective when patients and healthcare providers worked together to devise treatment plans that patients could stick to.
• Meals out – eating out in restaurants was a frequently mentioned problem and being offered inappropriate food when visiting others was also an issue.
• Favourite foods – healthcare professionals did not always appreciate that patients disliked being denied their favourite foods and would cope better if they were incorporated into eating plans.
• Exercise – attitudes toward exercise, physical limitations and discomfort prevented people from taking regular exercise. These need to be taken into account when devising exercise programmes.
• High risk lifestyles – behavioural and psychiatric disorders and cultural and language barriers, among both patients and family members, can impede effective treatment.
• Medication – some patients forgot to take their medication and others ran out. Others were reluctant to carry out regular glucose tests.
• Psychological wellbeing – psychological problems are common among people with diabetes, but healthcare providers do not always have the resources to manage this aspect of their patient’s care.
• Understanding – patients often lack knowledge about their condition and do not always understand the relevance of diet and care plans.
• Frustration – Being unable to maintain good glucose control can cause helplessness and frustration, as can the progression of the disease. (Source: IrishHealth.com)

While it may seem that many of these roadblocks to managed care would be common sense there is a strong indication that identifying them can help in the education of newly diagnosed diabetics as well as their health care providers. It may help provide signs family members and friends can look for in their diabetic loved one. Knowledge is always important to the success of any endeavor – including diabetes.

Professor Vivien Coates of the University of Ulster reported, “Our review found that there are various barriers to achieving optimal self-care in type 2 diabetes. Some stem from limitations within the healthcare team, some from ineffective communication between providers and patients and some from the patient’s lack of empowerment, motivation and involvement in their treatment.”

Researchers are also urging health care providers to learn more about the specific needs of their patients by taking into account the following five factors.

• Physical
• Psychosocial
• Cultural
• Financial
• Environmental

These factors can contribute to a more holistic approach to care that includes a broad range of conditions affecting the diabetic patient.

Treating Type 1 Diabetes with – Tobacco: What if you were told that by eating a small amount of tobacco on a regular basis you could reduce the likelihood of developing Type 1 diabetes? Recent research is indicating that a genetically altered strain of tobacco may have the capacity to aid in the possible prevention of Type 1 diabetes.

European researchers at the University of Verona, “Set out to create transgenic tobacco plants that would produce biologically-active interleukin-10 (IL-10), a potent anti-inflammatory cytokine,” according to a recent report in ScienceDaily.com.

The National Institute of Health says, “Evidence suggests that an imbalance in Th1/Th2 responses may play a key role in the development of autoimmune diabetes. Since interleukin-10 (IL-10) modulates immune and inflammatory responses and has been implicated in many autoimmune diseases [including Type 1 diabetes].”

Scientists discovered that the IL-10 was genetically adaptable using the common tobacco plant. This discovery is new and yet related to developments in recent years that seem to show substantial promise in the use of plant proteins to manage potential IL-10 therapies for Type 1 diabetes.

ScienceDaily.com reported on July 31, 2007, “Capsules of insulin produced in genetically modified lettuce could hold the key to restoring the body’s ability to produce insulin and help millions of Americans who suffer from insulin-dependent diabetes, according to University of Central Florida biomedical researchers.”

The impact of these developments may be most keenly felt in the pocketbook of the medical consumer. For instance the genetically modified tobacco could be taken in an unprocessed form (i.e. eating the actual plant) instead of producing something in a pill form. The result is a product that costs less and can be more quickly made available to patients. With the lettuce it would be possible to simply use this in a salad or as a sandwich topping although capsules could also be made available. According to Professor Mario Pezzotti of the University of Verona, “Transgenic plants are attractive systems for the production of therapeutic proteins because they offer the possibility of large scale production at low cost, and they have low maintenance requirements. The fact that they can be eaten, which delivers the drug where it is needed, thus avoiding lengthy purification procedures, is another plus compared with traditional drug synthesis.”

The idea behind using these plants is that they are easily grown and can provide a meaningful harvest. While it is true that tobacco has a social stigma attached to it this plant does seem to be one of the most adaptable to genetic modification for potential medical benefit.

This process of medical plant proteins is called molecular farming and is a growing field that effectively bridges the gap between what is commonly thought of as medicinal with more natural applications.

While multiple plants have been studied for use in delivering the needed medicine it is the tobacco plant that has impressed most researchers due to the ease of genetic manipulation and the fact that an entirely new tobacco plant can be developed using a single cell from an existing plant.

Tobacco is also a very hearty plant that can grow in many locations. While it may be viewed negatively with respect to cigarette manufacturing, the plant can perhaps be redeemed as a means of delivering potent plant proteins that can aid in the prevention or therapy of Type 1 diabetes.

A Visual Diabetes Diagnosis: When it comes to diabetes it may be possible that the eyes have it. There has always been support for the idea that eyes may be an indicator of the body’s ability to manage blood glucose prior to a diabetes diagnosis and become an important tool in eye management once diabetes is diagnosed. However, some more recent research suggests that it may be possible for your eye care professional to monitor and correctly diagnose the existence of the disease.

Researchers at the Kellogg Eye center at the University of Michigan have developed a new device that, “Captures images of the eye to detect metabolic stress and tissue damage that occur before the first symptoms of disease are evident.”

This device has been considered a positive and non-invasive way to check for diabetes in patients as part of a normal optical screening. Results are available in less than five minutes.

The UMHS report indicates, “Metabolic stress, and therefore disease, can be detected by measuring the intensity of cellular fluorescence in retinal tissue.”

With the onset of diabetes cell structures can die due to uncontrolled blood glucose. Those conditions can be monitored by this eye test and may alert your eye care professional to provide instruction on further steps you can take to monitor your condition.

Retinal changes in general can provide clues to the existence of diabetes, but it can also help diagnose other issues. An article by the Boston Health New Examiner indicates that Dr. Tien Wong of the University of Singapore has confirmed, “Early retinopathy signs are also associated with metabolic and vascular risk factors, and are strong markers of subclinical and clinical CVD events such as stroke, coronary heart disease and heart failure.”

Wong further states, “With the advent of sophisticated computer and imaging techniques, doctors can now measure with precision the arteriolar and venular diameters of retinal blood vessels to gain new understanding of early retinal vascular changes. Studying early retinopathy and retinal vascular changes may offer new insights into the vascular basis of diabetes, new avenues for prevention and treatment.”

Many scientists have been working diligently to find improved screening methods that remove the fears generally associated with diabetes blood tests. If they can match a peripheral method that is non invasive (such as a routine eye test) then it might not be as difficult to identify and treat the millions of undiagnosed cases around the world.

The University of Michigan report indicates, “Some 24 million Americans have diabetes and an additional 57 million individuals have abnormal blood sugar levels that qualify as pre-diabetes, according to the latest report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In addition, 4.1 million people over the age of 40 suffer from diabetic retinopathy, an eye-related complication of diabetes that is the leading cause of blindness among working-age adults.”

There may remain some debate over the exact method and acceptable parameters for diabetes detection. No matter the reservations some may have about the actual testing procedure there seems to be broad acceptance that this idea not only has merit, but also may be the common diagnostic testing procedure for diabetes in the future.

Like dental health the health of the eye can help doctors spot symptoms that can help answer other health questions. The result of this holistic approach can help multiple health practitioners work together to diagnose and treat illnesses before they become unmanageable.

Health Insurers Offer Concessions For Change: Imagine a world where your health insurance costs would not rise simply because you had a medical condition as financially taxing as diabetes? America’s Health Insurance Plans and Blue Cross Blue Shield offered a plan last week that would effectively end their, “Long-standing practice of charging sick customers higher premiums. [This is] a significant concession in the face of mounting criticism of the industry in Washington,” according to an LATimes.com report.

It may be safe to say that the insurance industry as a whole is feeling threatened by President Obama’s push towards nationalized medicine. As with other issues this may be a scenario that exists simply because the U.S. government has pushed so strongly toward reform in health care. Some have concluded that the choice may be to either provide radical reform in order to keep health care in the private sector or be bound by government run health care in the future.

A letter sent to senior U.S. lawmakers read, “By enacting an effective, enforceable requirement that all Americans assume responsibility to obtain and maintain health insurance, we believe we could guarantee issue coverage with no pre-existing condition exclusions and phase out the practice of varying premiums based on health status in the individual market.”

Forbes.com quoted Sheryl Skolnick a CRT Capital Group analyst as saying, “When you know you’re going to be regulated, then everyone knows it’s better to propose it yourself then have someone impose something on you. [Private insurers] are scrambling for anything that will get them a mandate because then everyone will be covered and that keeps the insurers in the game.”

As with everything in life there are provisions that must be met with this proposal. The American Health Insurance Plans indicate they can actively create this environment based on the government’s ability to bring all Americans to the health insurance table. The indication is that if the costs are distributed among a much larger pool then it is possible to provide insurance without many of the limitations in place today.

However, some provisions would remain unchanged. The fees the insured would have to pay are still contingent on age, family size and geographical location. As a bonus the group is indicating a willingness to provide health conscious discounts. This might reward those who quit smoking with a reduction in premium costs or in the case of the diabetic following a closely monitored self-management plan that include changes in diet and exercise.

This plan is not without opposition. There are some that remain uncertain that private health insurance plans can deliver, but others suggest it may be better to revamp an existing system than completely shift to a government based program that may not be fully equipped to handle the job of health coverage.

For years insurance carriers have argued that a variation in premiums was necessary because some individuals would wait until they were really sick before purchasing health insurance. They argue that if health insurance were mandatory then it would eliminate the need for price variations in policy coverage.

Some politicians remain skeptical and call the move a point of desperation by the insurance industry to attempt to stall any competition from a government run plan. Sen. Charles E. Grassley, “Dismissed the letter as simply reiterating the industry’s positions,” according to the LATimes.com. This comment was in reference to two previous attempts by the industry to garner governmental support.