Recently in health Category

Should patients pay several thousands of dollars a month for the medicine they need? When a recent New York Times article reported that health insurance companies are adopting a new pricing system that will drastically hike up the amount of co-payments, iVillage members were outraged.

With the new pricing system, insurers abandoned the traditional arrangement that has patients pay a fixed amount, like $10, $20 or $30 for a prescription, no matter what the drug’s actual cost. Instead, they are charging patients a percentage of the cost of certain high-priced drugs, usually 20 to 33 percent, which can amount to thousands of dollars a month.

Many iVillagers, including catwoman1977, can't help but express their disdain over the new pricing system: "We're already paying several hundred dollars a month in co-pays and now it might go into the thousands? There's no way the average American taxpayer can afford to be ill!"

And not surprisingly, members who already have medical and health issues to deal with, are doubly concerned. Says member ellamenopea: "This can't possibly be true, can it? My husband takes medication for asthma and if we had to pay more than the current co-pay, which is already $50, we'd have to change our style of living. Some of his medications are very, very expensive ... What the heck is wrong with this country that we can't provide for those who need care? And why can't the drug companies eat some of this cost?"

Member 3_lil_monkeys feel the same way: "I've been diagnosed with severe allergies as well as skin cancer, so I've had more office visits with specialists (co-pays for office visits to specialists have doubled) as well as medications that we didn't expect to have to purchase. We've already depleted our flex account for the entire year and will now need to pay any costs for the remaining 8 months of this year from out of our pockets."

It seems everyone has the same question. Asks member nightandday: "What's the point in having insurance and paying the ridiculously high premiums if we're going to have to pay for the drugs we need anyway?"

Share your thoughts on this issue, how will you be affected by the rise of co-payments?

As if keeping off the pounds wasn't already hard enough!

A new study from Purdue University has found that rats fed artificially sweetened yogurt were more likely to pack on the pounds than those that were fed yogurt sweetened with glucose. While it's true that foods and beverages containing aspartame, such as many diet sodas, are low in calories, they may also lead to overeating or less physical activity. When a sweet taste is not followed by a large number of calories, the body may get confused and consume far more calories than it needs or burn less energy than normal. Some specialists, however, aren't convinced these findings are scientifically sound and are dubious about drawing conclusions.

The study has nonetheless generated a great deal of conversation on our message boards. Many iVillagers, although aware of the controversy, are too attached to their daily diet cola fix to consider healthier alternatives like water and tea. Member dandm116 on the Pregnancy & Parenting After IVF board says, "Diet Coke is like my booze!"

And she's hardly alone. Member mindyk1978 also active on the Pregnancy & Parenting After IVF board adds that she drinks ... "diet caffeine free [soda]. I know there are mixed reviews about aspartame and carbonation, but I just don't know if I can kick it!"

Others on the Pregnancy & Parenting After IVF board, however, are far more leery of artificial sweeteners. Member emilysmom2007 tries to avoid it. "I generally stay away from anything diet ... I just feel like the more 'natural' the foods you eat/drink, even real sugar, the healthier." Member lucifies2girls finds fake sugar just as unsettling. "I don't drink diet soda ... aspartame just seems so artificial to me."

Well, she's right about that; aspartame is definitely artificial!

Interestingly, member meghanmck of the Get Fit Moms board has no problem regularly drinking diet soda, but she doesn't think it's safe to let her kids have it. "I continue to drink my diet coke ...  [but] I wouldn't give [artificial sweeteners] to my kids."

But some do take a much stronger stance against diet soda. Member catherinet on a GardenWeb discussion believes that all "... soda should be outlawed! OK, I'm not really serious, but I think it's a big health issue in this country. I also wouldn't substitute sugar-free sodas for the sugar ones, since I think sugar substitutes have their own set of problems."

No matter how you feel about aspartame and diet soda, it is important to know what you're putting in your body. What exactly are the ingredients in that can of Pepsi or that mug of root beer? Find out what's really lurking in your soft drink. Of course, once you know what you're drinking, you might want to get the lowdown on all those artificial sweeteners, too. Be sure and also check out what health expert Amy Hendel has to say about diet soda. And if you feel like going al naturale for a change, discover 10 simple ways you can cut back on sugar.

What do you think? Do you drink diet soda and use artificial sweeteners? If not, are there other, natural, sweeteners you prefer? Share your thoughts and ideas.

There's always been controversy surrounding vaccines for children—just ask members of iVillage’s Vaccination Debate board—but when a small but growing number of parents, who are claiming religious exemptions to avoid vaccinating their children, recently made the news, the debate took a new turn.

Some iVillage members think that the parents’ decision to claim religious exemptions to avoid vaccinations, when the real reason may be skepticism of the shots or concern they can cause other illnesses, puts other children at risk of contracting dangerous diseases. Members, such as genuinecanadianangel, think those parents are actually committing fraud: “Saying you have a religious exemption when you don't is clearly LYING, no matter how you look at it. It boggles my mind that the people who are crying foul at the doctors who apparently 'misled' them [about vaccines], are the same ones who have absolutely no trouble misleading school boards with blatant lies.”

Should anti-vaccine parents with no genuine religious objections be allowed to use a religious exemption? Some iVillagers, such as member kellyrn, don't think so: “It makes me really angry that people are so quick to lie about their convictions. They should be honest about their reasons. If this means that their child will have trouble getting into school, then too bad. There is a reason vaccines are required. If a parent doesn't agree with the reasons, then maybe public school isn't the best idea for their family.” Member jjhnn8600 agrees: "I personally don't think people should be able to opt out of vaccines and still be able to go to public school. Some people may have very legitimate religious reasons for not getting the vaccine. But, and I know this sounds harsh, that isn't my problem. If you don't want to vaccinate, then send your kids to a school where other parents are OK with their children being exposed to kids who don't receive vaccines."

But what about parents who feel that the risk of the vaccine is worse than the risk of the actual disease? Anti-vaccine iVillagers, such as member a_mothers_love, say claiming religious exemption is their only option for getting their kids into school: “With states only allowing religious exemptions, how else are parents supposed to protect their children from the dangers of vaccines? Yes, lying is wrong, but when it comes to our children, we will do whatever it takes to keep them safe.”

Some parents say vaccination is a personal choice, and until exemptions for “philosophical” or “moral” reasons are allowed, they should be free to claim religious objections. Says cl-suschi on the Non-Vaccine Support board: "So they don't like parents who use a religious belief when that is the ONLY OPTION to avoid any shots for their child? Well, that's the behavior they drive when they tell you that you must vaccinate your child even if you think the next round of shots may KILL THEM. If they don't like parents using a bogus exemption, then change the laws and really give the parent a CHOICE!" Member jhjkk is just as passionate about the issue of parental freedom: "I am one of those parents that don't vaccinate my kids... If the government would let US be the parents of our own kids and do what WE want and NOT them, then we wouldn't have to chose the religious exemption if we were not of a religion that is against vaccines."

Indeed, emotions run high when it comes to immunization, an important health decision for parents. Those against vaccinations are frustrated with the difficulties they face trying to avoid what they consider a harmful practice, and those in favor of vaccinations worry that their kids are at risk among non-vaccinated children.

Member catchzik76 sums up the difficulty of making what some consider a life-or-death decision for their kids: " I can honestly say that I personally feel like there are just risks not matter WHAT you choose. It's all pretty darn scary stuff. It's just up to the parents to decide what is best for their children and to weigh the risks themselves. I really hate this part of parenting."

Do you think parents should claim religious exemptions to avoid vaccines? Share your thoughts on the vaccine debate.

Mattel has announced its third recall in just over one month – affecting 800,000 toys, including Barbie Accessories. See the full list of affected toys here.

Last month, Mattel announced a recall of over 9 million toys, including Barbie dolls (gasp! not Barbie!) and Polly Pocket play sets, among others. See the full list of affected toys here.

Some of the toys have lead paint in higher-than-"permissible" levels (does anyone other than me and iVillage member marcellazr wonder why ANY lead paint is permissible on a kid's toy?), and some have dangerous magnets and small parts that can dislodge and become a choking hazard.

This announcement comes on the heels of some seriously scary news in toyland, including:

• Mattel's recall of 1.5 million toys due to hazardous levels of lead paint (see the full list of those toys here)
• The suicide of a Chinese executive implicated in the first lead paint recall
• The recall of millions of pieces of toy jewelry, also found to contain high levels of lead

...And one iVillager reported some eyebrow-raising behavior on the part of her local toy store around the time of the first Mattel recall announcement.

All this bad news has prompted a lot of conversation, ranting, and even soul-searching on the boards. Some blame lax government control and overseas production outsourcing for the current crop of dangers, with iVillage member ddnlj asking, "Is it still even worth manufacturing overseas?" and member rachel_not_ruthie questioning whether this kind of scare should change our buying behaviors.

Many iVillage moms are feeling a little bit freaked out, like nrmh112575: "I'm ready to order some home lead test kits for all my mattel toys now...do you know how many Dora things my dd has, and has had in her mouth????"

There's also a healthy amount of plain old irritation, especially as people try to make their way through the lengthy (and paperwork-intensive) refund process, like tabitha515:

"WTF I am so sick and tired of this! They will replace the item however you have to mail it in. Who has time for that? I sure don't. This is getting on my last nerve!"

But as mimomtobe pointed out in response to the Mattel toy recall earlier this month (a recall several orders of magnitude smaller than the current one, even), recalls seem to be the high cost of affordable toys: "I guess to be able to afford anything, we get to check for recalls all the time. Bummer."

Of course, there's a lot you can do to help protect your kids -- check out these toy safety basics, know what kinds of toys to look out for at the store, and find out how to act if your child accidentally ingests something harmful. Today's Janice Lieberman also offers up a toy safety checklist.

Have the recent recalls affected you? And whether they've affected you or not, how do you think we as consumers should respond? What are you doing differently, if anything? Let's hear it...

what's this?

On Wednesday the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a ruling that bans a procedure popularly called "partial birth abortion". The 5-4 decision marked the first time that the court has ruled on a specific procedure rather than the question of abortion overall. While most abortions performed would not be affected by this ban, the ruling has obviously added fuel to an already volatile long-running debate between pro-life and pro-choice activists. While abortion opponents see it as a major victory for their beliefs, abortion rights groups feel it's a major setback. Likely echoing their concerns, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg held a dissenting opinion and stated that this ruling "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court." She went on to say that the decision flies in the face of previous decisions and procedures deemed necessary by medical organizations. I'm paraphrasing a bit there, but Ruth's not the only one with a dissenting opinion around here; this news has sparked a lot of conversation on our boards as well. From the Abortion Debate board:

"I do not wish for abortion to become illegal but I can't say I was upset to hear this procedure will no longer be performed."

"I don't know about you, but if I need medical help, it's the doctor I'm turning to, not a politician trying to look "moral."

This ban is posturing and potentially dangerous."

Of course they're also discussing this ruling -- and the politics associated with it -- on the Politics Today board:

"No surprise. I fully expected *this* court to put it's layman opinion ahead of the medical experience and knowledge of licensed OB's and gynocologists on the issue before it.

It's called arrogance."

"I believe there has been so much objection due to the fact that it is a slippery slope. Once you start limiting abortion or banning certain procedures, it is only a matter of time until they ban the entire procedure."

What do you think about this ruling? Do you feel that this is a major development in the abortion debate? Does the decision set the stage for what issues are going to be in the spotlight for the 2008 presidential race? Share your thoughts and reactions here.

Speaking of, uh, buzz ... the debate over the use and legalization of medical marijuana often comes up on our message boards, spanning a wide variety of communities. cl-karen292 brings up the topic on the Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue board, where the subject often takes a more personal angle:

Montel Williams was at our state capital yesterday making a pitch for the medical use of marijuana to help with pain for people having debilitating diseases such as cancer, HIV/AIDS and Multiple Sclerosis. Williams was DXed with MS in 1999. He related that he has tried to manage his pain through prescription medications such as OxyContin to morphine only to damage his kidneys, leaving him incapacitated for awhile and still not managing his pain.

She goes on to say:

"I am for the use of marijuana for medical purposes, but believe that it becomes a prescription medication prescribed by a doctor. I have read where they want to allow the patient to be able to grow their own. I think that is opening a can of worms."

Other iVillagers share their opinions:

"I think it's sad that some of the current methods of pain control that we currently have available are much more dangerous and addictive than marijuana."

"I heard in the past that they were trying to produce a pill form of marijuana. That would be ideal if it actually works.

I believe inhaling smoke of any kind is not healthy. I know that marijuana fries brain cells. I've seen it."

"I used to be against this until I developed FMS. I am allergic to marijuana, but if I wasn't I would definitely try it. I do think it would need to be monitored very closely."

Another member offers this interesting theory:

" I don't think marijuana will be legalized in any form. The (illegal) drug syndicates stand to lose too much money. I bet they fund lobbyists to campaign against legalization."

What do you think? Should marijuana be a legal option for those patients in need of pain relief? Should it be a prescribed and controlled substance, or should patients just be allowed to grow their own? Is this just asking for trouble? Jump in and share your thoughts and concerns on this hot button issue!

The debate over the vaccine that guards against HPV (human papilloma virus), has been in the news for some time now since its approval last summer by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Certain strains of HPV have been linked to cervical cancer, and supporters of the vaccine see it as one way to guard young women against the deadly disease. Others fear the vaccine may come with unknown risks. The buzz surrounding the vaccine, marketed as Gardasil, remains at a constant simmer throughout the iVillage community, particularly due to legislation in Texas (and more recently in Virginia) that would require the vaccine for all sixth-grade girls. Last week the Texas legislature fought back against the strict mandate, voting to make the shots voluntary. Since this hot-button issue criss-crosses the boundaries of politics, health and parenting, our members naturally have a lot to say about it.

From the Feminism Today board:

"I think it is wrong to require girls to have this vaccine. I think it is great to have available, but I don't think it should be mandatory. I also find it ironic that men will decide what happens to women."

"I don't really understand why people wouldn't want their daughters vaccinated against this. I read in another message board a woman saying that if boys were vaccinated it would speed up the process of eliminating the problem and if so it should happen."

Meanwhile on the Vaccination Debate board, members are concerned with the possible unknown side effects down the line:

"This vaccine has been incorrectly touted as the "cervical cancer prevention" vaccine instead of HPV prevention vaccine. What gets me is this from the insert:

GARDASIL has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity or genotoxicity."

"First--I need to say that I am very pro-vaccination. With that said, if I had a daughter at the age to be vaccinated for HPV I wouldn't do it at this time."

iVillage Wellness hosts a board with a wealth of information on Herpes, HPV & Other STDs and reactions were mixed to the news of Texas Governor Rick Perry signing legislation to mandate the vaccine for 6th grade girls:

"I think the governor has stepped out of bounds. This decision should be up to the parents of the girls."

"No one wants to hear about someone developing cancer or other problems, especially if available measures can counter it. This mandate is a great start to better ensure the health of the generation coming up!"

"I think the vaccination is great for girls and I do not think that it will promote sexual behavior."

More reaction comes from the regional boards, who just may be dealing with legislation of their own, members of the Tennessee board are weighing the pros and cons. One iVillager sums up her feelings, and many others seem to share the same sentiment:

"I love the fact it can help prevent cancer. What has me so worried is that it is so new, we have no idea what some of health issues or side affects that may arise from this. I believe that it needs to be out longer before anything is pushed too hard on this. I have had family members die from cancer and myself have had abnormal paps. But still even if I was in the age bracket I wouldn't get (it) without enough studies being done on it. In the past few years there has been so many new meds recalled for the health risks they pose. I would like to wait and see if any arise from this new vaccine."

What are your thoughts on the HPV vaccine and the legislation that's tied to it? Do the benefits outweigh the risks here? Or is this a case of big drug companies pushing their products through political channels? I'll admit, as the mother of a 9-year-old girl, I'm wary and undecided -- what about you?