It’s often been said that if exercise were a pill, it’d be a mega-blockbuster, given the positive health effects — from lower cholesterol to improved cognition to longer lifetimes — to which it’s been tied.An editorial just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association says research supports consideration of a wider policy of reimbursing for structured exercise programs, particularly in high-risk groups, such as diabetics. Currently, health-insurance plans don’t treat exercise as medicine; only some plans offer a fitness benefit, usually a partial reimbursement for gym membership.Marco Pahor, author of the editorial and a University of Florida professor and chair of the school’s department of aging and geriatric research, isn’t saying that every commercial insurer should suddenly start paying for everyone’s Saturday-afternoon Zumba class.
But he points to a review of published data published in the same issue of JAMA that found aerobic exercise, strength training or both can help control blood-sugar levels in diabetics. And, he notes that “cost analyses have shown that use of a health plan–sponsored health club benefit by the general older population and by older adults with diabetes was associated with slower increases in total health care costs over 2 years.” Older adults going to a health club two or more times a week incurred $1,252 less in health-care costs in the second year than those who went less than once a week, he writes.
“The type of supported program and the target population eligible ought to be carefully assessed,” he writes. For example, it may be more cost-effective to pay for exercise programs for people with existing diabetes, not as a preventive measure. More data on the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a structured exercise program on different health conditions and outcomes need to be analyzed, he says.
That said, there is “solid evidence for public policy makers to consider structured exercise and physical activity programs as worthy of insurance reimbursement to promote health, especially in high-risk populations,” he writes.
What do you think, readers? Should Medicare or private insurers reimburse for exercise programs just like they do for statins or antidepressants
By Katherine Hobson

It’s often been said that if exercise were a pill, it’d be a mega-blockbuster, given the positive health effects — from lower cholesterol to improved cognition to longer lifetimes — to which it’s been tied.An editorial just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association says research supports consideration of a wider policy of reimbursing for structured exercise programs, particularly in high-risk groups, such as diabetics. Currently, health-insurance plans don’t treat exercise as medicine; only some plans offer a fitness benefit, usually a partial reimbursement for gym membership.Marco Pahor, author of the editorial and a University of Florida professor and chair of the school’s department of aging and geriatric research, isn’t saying that every commercial insurer should suddenly start paying for everyone’s Saturday-afternoon Zumba class.
But he points to a review of published data published in the same issue of JAMA that found aerobic exercise, strength training or both can help control blood-sugar levels in diabetics. And, he notes that “cost analyses have shown that use of a health plan–sponsored health club benefit by the general older population and by older adults with diabetes was associated with slower increases in total health care costs over 2 years.” Older adults going to a health club two or more times a week incurred $1,252 less in health-care costs in the second year than those who went less than once a week, he writes.
“The type of supported program and the target population eligible ought to be carefully assessed,” he writes. For example, it may be more cost-effective to pay for exercise programs for people with existing diabetes, not as a preventive measure. More data on the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a structured exercise program on different health conditions and outcomes need to be analyzed, he says.
That said, there is “solid evidence for public policy makers to consider structured exercise and physical activity programs as worthy of insurance reimbursement to promote health, especially in high-risk populations,” he writes.
What do you think, readers? Should Medicare or private insurers reimburse for exercise programs just like they do for statins or antidepressants
By Katherine Hobson

WASHINGTON DC – You may not know it, but an exclusive health club in DC is subsidized by your money. But, taxpayers aren’t welcome. Only members of Congress are.Photos of Anthony Weiner in the House gym recently brought attention to this popular Congressional perk.

http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/news/national/wellness-provides-plush-gym-for-house-members

WASHINGTON DC – You may not know it, but an exclusive health club in DC is subsidized by your money. But, taxpayers aren’t welcome. Only members of Congress are.Photos of Anthony Weiner in the House gym recently brought attention to this popular Congressional perk.

http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/news/national/wellness-provides-plush-gym-for-house-members

Bills in Georgia and Texas are the latest legislation that have been introduced relating to personal trainer licensing. Another bill introduced in Massachusetts does not have the licensure requirement.Introduced in March, Georgia Senate Bill 204 would impose professional and continuing education requirements of personal trainers and require them to pass an exam to obtain a license to practice in that state. The bill also would establish an 11-member Georgia Board of Fitness Trainers, which would determine the specific requirements for licensing. If passed, the bill would go into effect March 31, 2012. The International Health, Racquet and Sportsclub Association (IHRSA) says similar legislation in Georgia was defeated in 2010.Also in March, Texas introduced House Bill 3800, which relates to the licensing and regulation of professional fitness trainers administered by the Department of State Health Services. If passed, that bill would go into effect Sept. 1, 2011.Earlier this year, Massachusetts introduced House Bill 1005 in which personal trainers would be required to have either a current certification by a national independent organization accredited by the National Commission for Certifying Agencies or a credential or certification in either personal training, exercise science or a similar field from an educational institution recognized by either the Council for Higher Education Accreditation or the United States Department of Education.
Minus a licensure requirement, House Bill 1005, according to IHRSA, is the most industry-friendly personal trainer bill proposed in the country. Legislation that did include a licensure requirement was defeated during the 2009-2010 Massachusetts legislative session.

 Page 13 of 39  « First  ... « 11  12  13  14  15 » ...  Last »