The number of new Hepatitis C cases leaped nearly 300 percent from 2010 to 2015, according to a report released Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And the CDC points to the likely culprit behind the spike in cases of the infectious disease: the use of heroin and other injection drugs.

And despite the existence of therapies that can cure more than 90 percent of infections, the organization says the disease remains a deadly threat. In 2013, for instance, the CDC says some 19,000 people died of their infections.

“Hepatitis C is associated with more deaths in the United States than 60 other infectious diseases reported to CDC combined,” the researchers write.

States that have struggled most with the unfolding opioid crisis also tended to have worst rates of new Hepatitis C infections. All of the seven states that have rates of infection at least twice the national average — Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Tennessee and West Virginia — have seen a statistically significant increase in drug overdose deaths in recent years, as well.

The CDC evinces little doubt that statistics like these are intimately related.

“Injection drug use is the primary risk factor for new HCV infections,” the researchers write, referring to the disease by its initials and recommending that lawmakers “create and strengthen public health laws” to fight the disease.

In particular, the CDC says some of the best ways to combat its spread are ways to boost access to clean needles — such as syringe exchange programs and decriminalization of the possession of paraphernalia.

“State laws that increase access to syringe exchange programs and clean needles and syringes, and policies that facilitate access to HCV treatment through state Medicaid programs can reduce HCV transmission risk,” the CDC says.

Of all 50 states, the CDC found that only Massachusetts, New Mexico and Washington had both a “comprehensive set of laws and a permissive Medicaid treatment policy that might affect access to both HCV preventive and treatment services for persons who inject drugs.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

If, like many of us, you are reading this article on the toilet — then we’ve caught you at the perfect time.

When you’re done with your business, perhaps you’ll do a thorough hand washing. Or maybe just a quick rinse. Or maybe you’ll skip it altogether.

Failure to wash is a problem for ordinary folks. Germs on your unwashed hands can get into your body when you touch, say, your eyes or mouth. And into your food, too.

It’s a problem for health workers as well. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that medical staffonly remember to do so about half the times they’re supposed to. The CDC states: “This contributes to the spread of healthcare-associated infections that affect 1 in 25 hospital patients on any given day.” Worldwide, one in 10 patients acquires an infection while receiving health care.

So this month, the Centers for Disease Control is ramping up its campaign to get doctors, nurses and other medical staff to wash up.

But the question for medical workers (and really, for everyone) is: Do you do a good job?

CDC offers straightforward instructions: soap up, scrub and rinse. The process should take 35 seconds — about the time it takes to sing the alphabet song twice.

The World Health Organization has its own instructions. The process takes a tiny bit longer – 42.5 seconds. And there are six very specific steps.

WHO’s technique is a deliberate process to get rid of germs in all the nooks and crannies of the hands. First, rub your palms against each other, then rub the back of each hand against your palms. Rub your palms together with your fingers interlaced, rub your palms against each other while your fingers are interlocked, rub your fingers around each of your thumbs, and finally, rub each palm with the tips your fingers.

Both the CDC and WHO methods, which have been around for decades, are also taught at elementary schools (to germy kiddos) and restaurants (to staff who handle your food).

Recently, researchers wanted to compare them to see which was the best way to minimize bacteria.

In a small study recently published in the journal Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, researchers at the Glasgow Caledonian University in Scotland watched carefully as 42 doctors and 78 nurses cleaned their hands using either the CDC or WHO routine. They found that the WHO technique reduced the average bacterial count on the medical workers’ hands slightly more than the CDC’s method.

In any case, both organizations’ work really, really well, says study author says Jacqui Reilly, a professor of infection prevention and control at Scotland’s Glasgow Caledonian University who led the study.

The real issue is that health care workers aren’t cleaning their hands as often and as thoroughly as they should — basically every time they touch their faces or touch anything that isn’t sterile.

And when it comes to doing a good job, even having a set of directions doesn’t guarantee good results. In Reilly’s study, only 65 percent of the 120 participants completed the two techniques properly, despite having instructions right in front of them.

Reilly herself says she’s been using the six-step method since she was first taught it at medical school. “I don’t think about it consciously anymore,” she says.

She highly recommends you try it out after using the toilet. And if you don’t, at the very least, she says, remember that “any time you wash your hands, it should take at least 15 seconds.”

And avoid the making the rookie mistake of rubbing soap onto dry hands and then rinsing it off. If you wet your hands, first, Reilly says, the water works to dislodge any microorganisms clinging onto your skin, so that the soap can scrub them off:“So always wet your hands first.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Town hall meetings got loud for some Republican members of Congress this week, as they defended the passage of the American Health Care Act by the House of Representatives. Constituents have been asking a lot of questions, and we’ve been fact-checking the answers given by some leading GOP lawmakers.

Tom Reed, R-N.Y., at a town hall meeting in his district

“The pre-existing reform is not repealed by this legislation.”

Fact check: That’s not the whole truth

Reed was responding to a constituent who was concerned about a child with severe allergies: “His co-pays and deductibles will be through the roof,” the parent told Reed, “because he’s going to be in a high-risk pool — because he has a pre-existing condition.”

“No, no, no,” Reed told the parent.

The bill does have language that says insurers cannot deny people coverage or charge them more just because they have a pre-existing condition.

However, the GOP bill also has an enormous loophole in that regard. The plan allows states to apply for waivers from the federal government that get them out of many of the regulations put in place under the Affordable Care Act — including one that bans insurance companies from charging people with pre-existing conditions more for a health plan. A waiver would allow insurance companies to consider a person’s health status when determining what to charge for coverage. And that means that although someone with a pre-existing condition who lives in a state that got a waiver would have to be offered a policy, it could be very expensive.

Steve Scalise, R-La., on Fox News this week

“No matter what kind of plan you have today,” Scalise told Fox News, “if you have a pre-existing condition, under our bill, you cannot be denied coverage and you cannot be charged more than anybody else.”

Fact check: Not exactly true

Scalise, like Reed, is pointing to the language in the bill that retains the Obamacare rules that prohibit insurers from charging people with expensive medical conditions more than their neighbors of the same age for an insurance policy.

But the state waivers allow insurers a way around that guarantee.

Before the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies denied coverage or charged more if the person who wanted insurance had any of a long list of conditions — including arthritis, diabetes, heart disease, muscular dystrophy, obesity and sleep apnea, according to a list compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation from insurers’ underwriting guidelines.

Insurers also could refuse to cover many medications, including drugs that treat cancer, diabetes, AIDS or arthritis, according to Kaiser.

If you have cancer and buy insurance that doesn’t pay for your cancer treatment, your pre-existing condition is effectively excluded.

Rod Blum, R-Iowa, at a town hall in Dubuque

“If you’re getting your insurance through the group health care marketplace — your employer — nothing changes,” Blum told constituents this week. “If you’re getting your health insurance through Medicare, nothing’s going to change. If you’re currently getting your health insurance through Medicaid, nothing’s going to change.”

Fact check: Partly false

Blum’s statement refers to a couple of big things — employer coverage and Medicaid.

As to employer coverage, whether your insurance would change under the GOP bill depends on whether your company is based — and buys its insurance — in a state that gets a waiver.

In “waiver states,” employers’ insurance policies might no longer be subject to Obamacare regulations around so-called essential health benefits — the minimal benefits that must be included in a policy.

They also might no longer be subject to restrictions on annual and lifetime spending caps.

That means, in those states, your employer-sponsored health insurance policy could deny coverage for some categories of care, such as mental health care or maternity coverage. And the health plan could impose annual or lifetime limits on insurance benefits. So workers with very expensive conditions, or their family members with such conditions, could see their costs pile up — even if they have health coverage through work.

Before Obamacare, about 60 percent of employers had lifetime limits on their health plans.

Blum’s second statement — the one in regard to Medicaid — is false. The GOP health bill makes major changes to Medicaid, first by rolling back the expansion of the program over time.

The bill allows people to keep their expanded Medicaid as long as they remain eligible. But people at or near the poverty level often see their incomes fluctuate, making them temporarily ineligible for the health care program. Under the GOP bill, once they leave the Medicaid rolls, they would not be able to return, even if their income declines.

In addition, the bill fundamentally changes how the U.S. government finances Medicaid. States would receive a fixed amount of money from the federal government for each beneficiary, rather than an amount that varies according to the numbers of Medicaid beneficiaries and their health care needs.

Most analysts say that, over time, the level of services Medicaid could provide would decline if the GOP health bill becomes law, and the states would have to cut back on services. That forecast is borne out by the Congressional Budget Office, which said the changes to Medicaid would cut the costs of the program by $880 billion over 10 years.

Many services provided by Medicaid today, including home health care and services for people with disabilities, are considered “optional” under the GOP health bill. Those are also the services that help keep people out of hospitals and nursing homes.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)