“When you’re learning about how medications affect you, and if you’re a new patient, you’re going to carry that burden because as well as feeling tired, you’re really tired, you’re eating all the time. and just part of the coping mechanism,” he said.

Professor Ashley Bush, a researcher at the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health in Melbourne, told SBS News she was “very pleased” with the FDA’s decision to approve Cobenfy.

“I think it gives hope. The psychiatric community is cautiously optimistic that this might be a new asset to add to the resources for schizophrenia. I think it gives hope for the patient and the psychiatrist,” he said.

What is schizophrenia?

Schizophrenia symptoms are often divided into positive symptoms, which include hallucinations or delusions, and negative symptoms, which include decreased mood and social withdrawal.

What medications are used to treat schizophrenia?

Atypical antipsychotics include medications such as Clozapine and Risperidone.

“[Cobenfy] he said, “It’s more targeted medicine.”

Where is Cobenfy from?

Although the trials that led to its approval in the US were only five weeks long, the FDA said that patients who received Cobenfy “experienced a significant reduction in symptoms” compared to the placebo group.

Treatment-resistant schizophrenia affects about a third of people diagnosed with the disease.

When will it be available in Australia?

“It’s such a do-it-yourself approach with what we’ve got … we’re just managing day-to-day.”

Among the election ads flooding TV, social media, and street corners, you won’t see any opposition to a ballot measure that recommends spending billions of dollars to pay more doctors for treating low-income patients.

But opponents of Proposition 35 have a warning even if they don’t have the money to pay for ads: The measure could backfire and cost the state billions in federal funding.

Prop. 35 would take existing taxes on health insurance plans and use the money to increase payments to doctors and other providers who see Medi-Cal patients. Its supporters have raised $50 million, from groups representing hospitals, doctors and insurers.

Medi-Cal, the subsidized insurance plan that serves about 14 million Californians, has grown in size over the past decade with increased eligibility and benefits. But those changes did not come with a commensurate increase in payment to doctors.

As a result, health care providers and advocates say very few doctors accept Medi-Cal, leaving patients with nowhere to turn.

According to the California Public Policy Institute, this measure is leading and likely to pass.

But opponents, represented by a small coalition of public health advocates, senior citizens and good government activists, say the details of the proposal put the state at risk of losing billions in federal funding.

That’s because the federal government under the administration of Biden and Trump has warned California that its tax on health plans to support Medi-Cal services takes unfair advantage of a loophole in state law. The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is committed to closing that gap, officials wrote in a letter to California officials late last year.

“This is a terrible mistake for this plan,” said Kiran Savage-Sangwan, executive director of the California Pan-Ethnic Health Coalition, which is leading the opposition. “We can all have ideas on how to spend the money, but we have to raise the money first.”

The problem, opponents say, is how California taxes health plans and whether Prop. 35 how does it reduce changes in the future.

Currently, the Management System Tax, also known as the MCO Tax, raises money for Medi-Cal by charging health insurers who serve Medi-Cal and commercial patients. The federal government gives California a dollar match for any revenue generated by the tax. For Prop. 35 is an estimated $7 billion to $8 billion annually through 2027.

However, California has historically placed a higher tax burden on Medi-Cal insurers than commercial insurers. In its letter to federal officials, federal officials said Medi-Cal plans represent 50% of all insured people but bear “99% of the total tax burden.” That goes against the spirit of the law, which is intended to redistribute money from commercial insurers to Medi-Cal plans, officials wrote.

Prop. 35 would cover the tax on commercial insurers at a lower rate. Any attempt to change the tax would have to go back to the ballot box or be approved by three-fourths of the Legislature. Opponents say that means changes in the federal government that require business taxes to be more equal to Medi-Cal taxes will force the state to cut taxes on Medi-Cal plans.

“The result of this is if the federal government follows through on their promise to change the tax laws, the money we collect from this tax will be significantly reduced and we will be leaving billions of dollars on the table,” Savage-Sangwan. said.

Proponents of the measure say the argument is bogus but provide no evidence. They say Prop. 35 will make the Medi-Cal program more stable and higher rates will encourage more providers to see low-income patients.

California’s Medi-Cal reimbursement rates fall in the bottom third of the rest of the state, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, and rates for specialty services like maternity are among the lowest. the most in the country.

“Prov. 35 is a much-needed investment to protect and expand access to care for Medi-Cal patients and all Californians,” said Molly Weedn, spokeswoman for the E on Prop. campaign. 35, in the sentence. “The primary purpose of Prop. 35 is to provide stability and predictability … to address the significant shortage of providers who can see Medi-Cal patients.”

The California Association of Health Plans said it did not request a business tax break for the proposal and that it has always supported this tax structure to fund Medi-Cal. Higher taxes on business plans can increase fees.

Where is Newsom’s government on Prop. 35?

The largest donors to the campaign are the California Hospital Association, Global Medical Response, and the California Medical Association, which collectively gave $38 million. The opposition has not raised any money, according to state campaign finance reports.

Gov. Gavin Newsom hasn’t taken a formal position on the measure, though he said at a press conference in July that he was concerned about how it would freeze tax revenue for one project. The federal budget he signed that month shifted most of the tax revenue from a tax on health insurers to the general fund to pay for the Medi-Cal program.

If voters approve Prop. 35, the state will face a deficit of $ 2.6 billion in the current budget, which depends on taxes to fill the gaps. That deficit will rise to $11.9 billion over the next three budget cycles, according to an analysis from the Treasury Department.

“This effort is hindering our ability to have the kind of flexibility that’s needed in this time that we live in. But I’m just giving an opinion. Maybe you can read between a lot of the lines,” Newsom said at the conference. the media.

Newsom’s office did not respond to multiple requests about whether he would legally oppose the measure.

Savage-Sangwan said the opposition has not asked for money for its campaign.

“We’re using the smallest megaphone we have to get information,” he said.

Businesses in 2024 measure health care options

Political divide over Prop. 35 is not common. Opponents of the measure are often on the same side as its supporters when it comes to health policy issues in the Capitol. But public health advocates say they’re speaking out because the project’s implications are too dangerous.

“We want to make it clear that the prop’s goals are goals that we agree with. We recognize that our Medi-Cal providers are underpaid and that disproportionately affects people of color, especially children of color,” said Mayra Alvarez, president of The Children’s Partnership, another opposition group.

Some lawmakers agree. During the many budget discussions, Sen. Caroline Menjivar, a Democrat from Van Nuys, came to oppose the proposal in part because the industry groups negotiating who will get the money from the tax have been left out by “public donors” and ” who do not have high-paid investors.”

“By listening to those with boots on the ground, the legislature created a plan to address many of Medi-Cal’s problems fairly over the next several years,” Menjivar said in a statement from the opposition campaign.

The tax is expected to generate more than $30 billion over the next four years. The budget Newsom signed puts most of the money in the state’s general spending account, but sets aside about $2 billion to increase fees for services including public health workers, private nursing , centers for adults and children and children at risk for Medi-Cal. not registered. If Prop. 35 can pass, different groups will be promoted.

Weedn with the Yes on Prop. 35 campaign said that this plan will not cause a reduction if it passes. It will be up to the Legislature to decide how to pay for the programs that opponents are concerned about, he said, and that the measure provides about $2 billion in variable funding each year. year for legal priorities.

It is supported by the California Health Care Foundation (CHCF), which works to make sure people get the care they need, when they need it, at a price they can afford. Visit www.chcf.org to learn more.

by Chris Shugart

The Study of Calories

What if we kept our diet the same but did a buncha cardio? Can we lose fat? How much? What about muscles? Check out this tutorial.

Simply put, choose one of these options to lose fat:

1. Eat fewer calories than your maintenance intake (dietary calorie deficit)
2. Consume or burn more calories (calorie deficit through exercise)
3. Eat less than care AND burn more calories with exercise

Yes, hormones, sleep, nutrient timing, and other factors play a role, but calories play a major role in any fat loss event.

Most of us choose number three when it comes to losing fat: we switch between “calories-in” and “calories-out.” But what would happen if we stuck to maintenance calories and found an energy deficit just by exercising? What if the workout was just cardio? And what if we found ourselves in a 1000-calorie deficit by doing two hours of daily cardio for 93 days?

Well, we probably wouldn’t! Fortunately, some researchers have done it, and there’s a lot we can learn from their crazy study.

Calories-Out Just Study

This lesson was crazy hard. The researchers recruited seven pairs of obese, identical conjoined twins to live in a research facility for several months. All meals were prepared for them and they were monitored by two researchers each time they ate to make sure they were consuming the correct number of calories required for the study.

During the initial evaluation, the 14 participants underwent every imaginable test to determine their maintenance regimen, including body weight, skin tone, blood work, biopsies…you name it.

Remember, the goal was to put them in a calorie deficit, not to cut calories. Their diet was not “food” – it was a diet of care and made for every young man. Macros were 50% carb, 15% protein, and 35% fat.

For exercise, participants rode a stationary bicycle (light to moderate) for a total of two hours per day: one exercise in the morning and one in the afternoon. The researchers made sure that everyone burns 1000 calories from exercise per day. They did this for 10 days in a row, with a day off, and repeated it several times. Made it to 93 days of being in a calorie deficit.

Are They Dead?

No. On average, they lost 11 kilograms without noticeable muscle loss. Some lost only 2 kilograms; some lost up to 17.5, but the average was 11.

What Can We Learn?

Cardio works. Sure, it has limitations and drawbacks, but it works despite all the influencers on social media saying, “Cardio doesn’t work!” Obviously, it is. Hey, I wish everyone would gain weight and lose muscle, so I would have an excuse to avoid cardio, but it never happened.

Based on CICO calculations (calories-in calories-out), the researchers expected to lose more fat. They ran the numbers and figured the average weight loss would be 14 pounds. So why only 11?

According to Dr. Bill Campbell, the topics of metabolisms probably changed as the study progressed. Like food, the body adapts to aerobic exercise. Sometimes this happens because “the body adapts to increased physical activity by reducing the energy used in other physical activities, especially non-exercise thermogenesis or NEAT,” Dr. Campbell says.

This is something that competitive bodybuilders realize: the more they increase their cardio, the less they want to move outside of the gym. In the case of this study, their 1000-calorie deficit may have turned into an 800-calorie deficit because they sat around at times, burning 200 fewer calories. Cardio still worked, but the calorie count changed. Your body, that sneaky guy, fights you like a ninja when you’re trying to lose fat.

Some of the subjects lost 2-3 kilograms while others lost 15-17. They all did the same exercise and ate the same diet. This reminds us not to compare our results with those of others. Although genetically identical twins had similar rates of fat loss, they were also not identical. For example, one twin lost 13 kilograms while his brother lost 9. Same exercise, same diet, same genes, but different results.

Calorie-out only fat loss plans can work. Eat what you normally eat and walk more. But it’s hard to do outside the lab.

I suspect most people don’t see fat loss because all they do is add cardio without being very conscious of what they eat. Cardio is good, but if they’ve been gaining weight slowly for years then they’re probably eating a lot of excess calories. The calories they burn through cardio only put them back on when they eat, but they keep their bodies overweight. (Try my 5/2 Protein diet if that’s you.)

Should I Do Two Hours of Cardio a Day?

No, but it helps a little. Dr. Campbell suggests a “sequential fat loss plan.” This is a fancy way of saying don’t fire all your fat loss bullets at once.

First, take care of the “calories-in” part of the equation: cut 300 to 500 calories a day by eating less. Your body will eventually adapt and slow down the rate of fat loss. NOW fire another bullet: add cardio as a new boost.

Although the people in this study were sedentary, people who lift muscles can be prone to muscle loss, so keep your protein high and lift regularly to prevent it. Shoot for one gram of protein per pound of body weight and use MD Protein (Buy on Amazon) making it easier to hit that number. As a bonus, MD Protein contains micellar casein, the only protein proven to be anti-catabolic.

References

1. C Bouchard, and others. “Response to intermittent high-intensity exercise in identical twins,” Obesity Research, 2013. DOI: 10.1002/j.1550-8528.1994.tb00087.
2. The Body Through Science, Dr. Bill Campbell. April, 2024, Issue 22.

Health care is already complicated, expensive and confusing for many people in the US, and it is one of the biggest issues in the 2024 election. Vice President Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump has both vowed to take this on if he wins—and to do so with policies ranging from reducing drug costs to ensuring access to care. But there are big differences over how their various plans would affect the economics of the US health care system — and the people who face its mandate every day.

Harris says his administration will strengthen the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and expand the savings provisions of the IRA’s. Trump’s presidential record on health care has been mixed, filled with attacks on the ACA and significant cuts to health insurance programs.

Drug Price

---

Supporting science journalism

If you enjoyed this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism to register. By purchasing a subscription, you help ensure a future of compelling stories about the discoveries and ideas that shape our world today.

---

People in the US pay more for medicine than people in other very wealthy countries. Both presidential candidates have emphasized lowering drug prices prominently in their programs, and each has made related policy moves during their time in the White House.

During President Joe Biden’s administration, Harris cast a strong vote to pass the IRA Act of 2022 that sets new limits on drug price increases. The IRA gave Medicare (the federal insurance program for adults 65 and older) the ability to negotiate lower prices for certain drugs. The biggest talking point in Harris’ campaign is the $35 insulin hike. It also made Medicare-covered vaccines free and expanded subsidies to help low-income people pay for better coverage. And it would put $2,000 out of pocket in annual prescription drug spending under Medicare starting in 2025. Cancer drugs, for example, can now cost patients more than $10,000 a year. But the IRA will lower this to $2,000, explains Stacie B. Dusetzina, a health policy and drug price researcher at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. “This is a huge increase in benefits coming to seniors,” Dusetzina says.

Ten drugs have already been listed for price negotiations, but people won’t start seeing price changes at the pharmacy until January 2026. Harris says, if elected, he will further strengthen the IRA, lower costs of additional drugs under Medicare-even expansion. providing drug coverage under private insurance and Medicaid, the federal insurance program that covers some people with low incomes, certain disabilities or pre-existing conditions. It is uncertain what the fate of the IRA will be under the Trump administration.

“One of the reasons why drug price negotiations have become such a hot topic is that there is concern among Republicans that companies do not have the incentives to invent and develop new drugs” if they can’t find the potential profit, Dusetzina says. . “Many Republican members of Congress have pushed to stop drug price negotiations, and we know that pharmaceutical companies have … sued the government to stop negotiations on select products.” (Several companies have lost their lawsuits, and other lawsuits are ongoing.) If a second Trump administration were to act quickly, it might try to block or to undo the policy before the new prices take effect in 2026, Dusetzina says.

In Trump’s final months in 2020, he issued two executive orders to help lower the cost of prescription drugs. He tried to prevent pharmacy benefit managers—third-party companies that negotiate prices and discounts between drugmakers and consumers—from collecting reimbursement checks on discounted drugs sold to the public. elderly with Medicare to ensure that these people get full money from drug manufacturers. He also tried to push through the “Most Favored Nation”, which would have put certain prescription drugs under Medicare at low costs, close to those paid in other developed countries.

Critics said the Most Favored Nation model would give other countries more control over drug prices. The Biden administration pulled the plug on the order in 2022. In his campaign, Trump initially supported restoring the Most Favored Nation model, but has recently walked back those statements. Dusetzina says there is bipartisan support for reducing drug patents, which would enable generic drugs to enter the market, thus reducing prices.

Affordable Care

In last month’s presidential debate, Trump falsely said he had “saved” the Obama-era ACA, which provides health insurance to more than 21 million people. During the Trump administration, he has repeatedly tried to delete it. Ultimately, he failed, although he persuaded Congress to repeal the ACA’s individual tax penalty, which encouraged people to enroll in health insurance programs. While Trump has been in office, ACA insurance enrollment has dropped from 12.7 million people to 11.4 million, raising premiums for those who remain.

As president, Trump also proposed funding plans that would have cut $1 trillion from Medicaid if approved. The ACA supports a federal funding program that matches 90 percent of the costs to say they choose to expand Medicaid; this extends access to health care services to people below 138 percent of the poverty line. States that accepted the expansion saw a 41.7 percent increase in insurance enrollment as of 2020. Ten states have not expanded Medicaid, creating coverage gaps that studies have shown disproportionately affect people with colors. People with low-wage jobs may also not qualify for Medicaid because their income is still too high by individual states’ standards.

In an attempt to fill these gaps, Trump allowed states to use work requirements—which force Medicaid recipients to prove they work 20 hours a week, participate in community service or otherwise. are eligible for exemption. But mandatory pilot programs in states without Medicaid expansion, such as Arkansas and Georgia, have seen poor enrollment rates and high government costs, says Stephen W. Patrick, a pediatrician and chair of Emory University’s Department of Health Policy and Management. Patrick notes that polls suggest a majority of Georgians favor Medicaid expansion. While the Trump administration has suppressed such requirements, the Biden administration has moved to roll them back, saying work and employment should not be tied to access to health care.

Trump’s position on the ACA has been inconsistent and ambiguous throughout his campaign. He has said he will keep the ACA and strengthen it. In other words he promised to replace it with something better. During his September 2024 interview with Harris, Trump said he had “planning ideas” but did not provide specifics. Trump’s ally, Senator JD Vance of Ohio, recently proposed major changes to insurance risk pools that would make coverage more affordable for those with less medical needs — and it’s expensive. weight for those with higher. This may undo ACA protections that prevent insurers from discriminating against people with disabilities or pre-existing conditions, including chronic conditions or disabilities, or people who are pregnant.

Trump has tried to deal with the medical bill, a byzantine process – and sometimes collapses – for many in the US – online services. However, it may raise some costs.

The Biden-Harris administration has actively promoted insurance enrollment and advocated for ways to strengthen and protect the ACA, Patrick says. On his campaign trail, Harris also strongly touted a proposal that would use unused COVID relief funds to remove $7 billion in medical debt from people’s credit reports. “No one should be denied access to economic opportunity simply because they have a medical emergency,” Harris said in a June press release.

Pandemic Preparedness

The Trump administration has created a Coronavirus Task Force to oversee public health efforts during the COVID pandemic, and has also pushed Operation Warp Speed ​​to rapidly develop life-saving mRNA COVID vaccines by the end of 2020. Although even so, many experts say that the country was not well prepared for this epidemic. because of some of the moves that Trump has made. At the height of the outbreak, he repeatedly downplayed and dismissed advice from public health officials, banned mask mandates and continued to hold large rallies during his presidential campaign. 2020. Since then he has promoted anti-vaccine sentiment; many experts agree that many of the COVID-19 deaths among Trump supporters could have been avoided.

Biden’s American Rescue Plan, created in 2021, helped mobilize the public health response to this epidemic. Federal funds have provided free COVID vaccines, tests and treatment. The project also aims to reduce the racial injustice that has arisen during this epidemic. In 2023 Biden signed legislation to help the country prepare and plan for future pandemics. It also created the White House pandemic preparedness office, which Trump shut down in 2018, to monitor biological threats and diseases — such as the H5N1 bird flu, which recently infected dairy cattle and poultry. US, along with other people. The next administration will have to face the potential threat of an H5N1 outbreak.

Editor’s Note: The Ideas Lab asked Democrat and Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate to submit 1,000-word essays on how they would deal with health care, an issue Wisconsinites surveyed as part of the Main project Street Agenda says it is the third biggest problem they face going forward. The Nov. 5 election

When I was 9 years old, I got very sick and ended up spending three months in the hospital. At the time, my grandparents were taking care of me, and their insurance wouldn’t cover me because I wasn’t their child. After I recovered, my grandparents started looking for insurance that would help me. But no insurance company would cover me at any price, because I was called by those scary words: “pre-existing condition.”