Anti-depressant use still rising

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
27 September 2011 Last updated at 14:00 GMT It is estimated that 11.3% of Scots, over the age of 15, take anti-depressants on a daily basis The number of anti-depressants being prescribed to people in Scotland is continuing to increase, according to the latest figures.

Statistics from the Scottish government suggest that more than one in 10 of the population are on the drugs.

In the last financial year a total of 4.6 million anti-depressants were prescribed in Scotland, up more than 350,000 on the previous year.

Labour accused the SNP of "ditching" efforts to cut anti-depressant use.

It is estimated 11.3% of Scots, aged over 15, take the drugs on a daily basis.

The rate of growth in the prescribing of anti-depressants increased from an annual growth of 7.6% in 2009/10 to 8.1% in 2010/11.

The continued rise in anti-depressant use comes despite a Scottish government pledge to reduce it.

In 2007 the SNP said it wanted to bring the yearly increase down to zero, and then by a further 10% each year.

Scottish Labour's public health spokesman Dr Richard Simpson, who is a fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatry, said: "The fact that the number of Scots on anti-depressants is the highest level since records began - with more than one in 10 Scots now on the drugs - is extremely troubling.

Continue reading the main story

It is scandalous that more than 10% of people aged 15 and over are reliant on anti-depressants”

End Quote Mary Scanlon MSP Scottish Conservatives "Back in 2007 the SNP set a target to bring the use of anti-depressants under control, but when the going got tough the SNP ditched the target."

"I know from my experience as a doctor that mental illness can be devastating for those who experience it. However, for all but the most serious cases, the daily use of drugs should be a last resort.

Dr Simpson said there needed to be a greater focus on early intervention and other alternative therapies.

The latest Scottish government statistics also showed a variation in the percentage of the population using anti-depressants across Scotland, with 8.3% of people living in Shetland taking the drugs compared with 12.9% in Greater Glasgow and Clyde.

Five health boards - Glasgow, Lanarkshire, Ayrshire and Arran, Forth Valley and Tayside - had rates of use above the Scottish average.

GPs wrote the vast majority of those prescriptions with the remainder written by authorised prescribers such as nurses and dentists.

The figures also included prescriptions written in hospitals that were dispensed in the community, but exclude prescriptions dispensed within hospitals.

The Scottish Conservatives also criticised the SNP for its "failure" to meet promised targets for tackling people's reliance on anti-depressants.

Holistic approach

Mary Scanlon MSP said: "It is scandalous that more than 10% of people aged 15 and over, a figure which therefore includes many young people, are reliant on anti-depressants.

"Investment in mental health with early diagnosis and early intervention is critical to get patients the support and treatment they need - when they need it."

The Scottish Liberal Democrats said the government's mental health strategy, currently out for consultation, needed to explore the "burgeoning" problem of anti-depressant use.

The party's health spokeswoman Alison McInnes MSP said: "While anti-depressants have a role to play, we need to see a much more holistic approach to mental health problems in Scotland.

"We need to be confident that doctors have the time to explore alternatives to anti-depressants before reaching for the prescription pad."

Further prescription statistics, just published by the government, show a big fall in the number of drugs being prescribed to tackle obesity in Scotland.

In 2010/2011 the number fell to 95,000, a decrease of almost 30% on the previous year.

The reduction is estimated to have saved the NHS more than £1m. A separate survey suggests 65% of people in Scotland are overweight and 28% are obese.

View the original article here

Peliculas Online

Read More

HEALTH MANAGEMENT. American families only $ 95 off better in 10 years because of rising health care costs

A median-income American family is only $95 per month better off today than ten years ago because rising health care costs have eliminated virtually all their income gains, researchers from the RAND Corporation revealed in the journal Health Affairs. Had health care costs risen in line with other goods and services those families would have had an extra $545 disposable income per month in 2009.
Economist David Auerbach, the study's lead author, said:

"Accelerating health care costs are a primary reason that the so many American families feel like they are just treading water financially." "Unless we reverse the trend, Americans increasingly notice that health will costs compromise their other spending options."

Between 1999 and 2009 in the United States: health care spending rose from $1.3 trillion to $2.5 trillionHealth care spending per person rose from $4,600 to just over $8,000.13.8% of country's GNP (gross domestic product) was spent on health care in 1999. It rose to 17.6% in 2009.These numbers may be sobering, but they do not translate to the daily routine of typical American families easily, mainly because health care costs are not all clearly visible, the authors wrote.
To describe the hidden burden that ever increasing health care expenditure placed on a median-income family consisting of two parents with two children, with employer-sponsored insurance from 1999 to 2009, Auerback and Dr. Arthur L. Kellermann gathered various data together from several sources.
American families can see health care costs in two ways: through the amount they have to pay every month on their private health insurance premiumThrough out-of-pocket expenditure for deductibles, drugs, copayments and other itemsHowever, the researchers say there are other less visible costs: for an employer to be able to pay a share of the worker's premium, his/her wages and other compensation are usually reducedA proportion of the family's income goes towards paying for federal and state taxes which are devoted to such health programs as Medicaid, Medicare and the military health had on annual income of $76,000 in 1999, care system the median-income family in the United States this grew to $99,000 in 2009, on increase of 30%. However, health spending increased at a considerably greater rate. Monthly health insurance for families rose from $490 to $1,115 (128%), and out-of-pocket expenses from $135 to $240 (78%).
Public expenditure on health rose by 76% at state level and 140% at federal level.
As federal tax rates dropped during the ten-year period, the portion of family's tax bill that went towards health care costs – from $345 to $440 did not fully reflect this increase.
Therefore, families had much less money to spend because of rapidly rising healthcare costs.
A typical family's income rose by approximately $1,910 during the decade. Over 40% of that went on higher health care costs. Increases in the cost of consumer goods plus non-health care taxes absorbed a further 53%, leaving the average median-income family with a mere $95 extra money in their pockets at the end of each month.
Kellermann said:

"The complex way that the United States pays for health care often obscures the consequences of health care cost growth for most American families." "This makes the challenge of controlling health care costs that much harder."

The researchers worked out that if health care costs had risen by 1% more than the annual GDP rise, the median-income family would have had $335 extra cash at the end of the month at the end of the decade, and $545 if health care costs had risen the same as the overall inflation rate during that period.
The target set by the affordable care Act is a 1% higher increase in health care spending than the increase in GDP.

Read More