Happy 2017

Happy New Year...welcome 2017

Wishing peace and God's blessings to all my family and friends. Especially to my sister and brother-in-law. May 2017 bring them closer to good health so they can resume and enjoy their lives. Hoping in the new year relationships can be re-kindled, holding current ones close to my heart, and looking forward to creating new ones with friends I haven't met yet. Happy New Year!

Mommy & Emma

Daddy & Emma.
Emma sitting in Aunt Laura's Cabbage Patch doll cradle.
The cradle has to be close to 30 years old.

Gram loves Emma

Uncle Alfie & Emma

Emma & cousin Shawn

Emma & her grandpa

Latest Hospital Injury Penalties Include Crackdown On Antibiotic Resistant Germs

Reprinted from KHN / Kaiser Health News

By Jordan Rau December 21, 2016

http://www.khn.org/

The federal government has cut payments to 769 hospitals with high rates of patient injuries, for the first time counting the spread of antibiotic-resistant germs in assessing penalties.

The punishments come in the third year of Medicare penalties for hospitals with patients most frequently suffering from potentially avoidable complications, including various types of infections, blood clots, bed sores and falls. This year the government also examined the prevalence of two types of bacteria impervious to drugs.

Based on rates of all these complications, the hospitals identified by federal officials this week will lose 1 percent of all Medicare payments for a year — with that time frame beginning this past October.  While the government did not release the dollar amount of the penalties, they will exceed a million dollars for many larger hospitals. In total, hospitals will lose about $430 million, 18 percent more than they lost last year, according to an estimate from the Association of American Medical Colleges.

The reductions apply not only to patient stays but also will reduce the amount of money hospitals get to teach medical residents and care for low-income people.

Forty percent of the hospitals penalized this year escaped punishment in the first two years of the program, a Kaiser Health News analysis shows. Those 306 hospitals include the University of Miami Hospital in Florida, Cambridge Health Alliance in Massachusetts, the University of Michigan Health System in Ann Arbor and Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City.

Nationally, hospital-acquired conditions declined by 21 percent between 2010 and 2015, according to the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, or AHRQ. The biggest reductions were for bad reactions to medicines, catheter infections and post-surgical blood clots.

Still, hospital harm remains a threat. AHRQ estimates there were 3.8 million hospital injuries last year, which translates to 115 injuries during every 1,000 patient hospital stays during that period.

Each year, at least 2 million people become infected with bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics, including nearly a quarter million cases in hospitals. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates 23,000 people die from them.

Infection experts fear that soon patients may face new strains of germs that are resistant to all existing antibiotics. Between 20 and 50 percent of all antibiotics prescribed in hospitals are either not needed or inappropriate, studies have found. Their proliferation — inside the hospital, in doctor’s prescriptions and in farm animals sold for food — have hastened new strains of bacteria that are resistant to many drugs.

One resistant bacteria that Medicare included into its formula for determining financial penalties for hospitals is methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, which can cause pneumonia and bloodstream and skin infections. MRSA is prevalent outside of hospitals and sometimes people with it show no signs of disease. But these people can bring the germ into a hospital, where it can be spread by health care providers and be especially dangerous for older or sick patients whose immune system cannot fight the infection.

Hospitals have had some success in reducing MRSA infections, which dropped by 13 percent between 2011 and 2014, according to the CDC. AHRQ estimates there were 6,300 cases in hospitals last year.

The second bacteria measured for the penalties is Clostridium difficile, known as C. diff, a germ that can multiply in the gut and colon when patients take some antibiotics to kill off other germs. It can also spread through contaminated surfaces or hands.

While it can be treated by antibiotics, C. diff can also become so serious that some patients need to have part of their intestines surgically removed. C. diff can cause diarrhea and can be deadly for the elderly and other vulnerable patients.

C. diff has challenged infection control efforts. While hospital infections dropped 8 percent from 2008 to 2014, there was a “significant increase” in C. diff that final year, the CDC says. AHRQ estimated there were 100,000 hospital cases last year.

“The reality is we don’t know how to prevent all these infections,” said Dr. Louise Dembry, a professor at the Yale School of Medicine and president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.

The Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program also factors in rates of infections from hysterectomies, colon surgeries, urinary tract catheters and central line tubs. Those infections carry the most weight in determining penalties, but the formula also takes into account the frequency of bed sores, hip fractures, blood clots and four other complications.

Specialized hospitals, such as those that treat psychiatric patients, veterans and children, are exempted from the penalties, as are hospitals with the “critical access” designation for being the only provider in an area. Of the remaining hospitals, the Affordable Care Act requires that Medicare penalize the 25 percent that perform the worst on these measures, even if they have reduced infection rates from previous years.

That inflexible quota is one objection the hospital industry has with the penalties. In addition, many hospitals complain that they are penalized because of their vigilance in detecting infections, even ones that do not cause any symptoms in patients. Academic medical centers in particular have been frequently punished.

“The HAC penalty payment program is regarded as rather arbitrary, so other than people getting upset when they incur a penalty, it is not in and of itself changing behavior,” said Nancy Foster, vice president for quality and patient safety at the American Hospital Association.

Federal records show that 347 hospitals penalized last year will not have payments reduced because their performance was better than others. Those include Harbor-UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles, the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore and the University of Tennessee Medical Center in Knoxville.

Over the lifetime of the penalty program, 241 hospitals have been punished in all three years, including the Cleveland Clinic; Intermountain Medical Center in Murray, Utah; Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles; Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta; Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago; and Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston.

The penalties come as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services also launches new requirements for hospitals to ensure that the use of antibiotics is limited to cases where they are necessary and be circumspect in determining which of the drugs are most likely to work for a given infection. Hospitals will have to establish these antibiotic stewardship programs as a condition of receiving Medicare funding under a regulation the government drafted last summer.

Lisa McGiffert, who directs Consumers Union’s Safe Patient Project, said that as a result of Medicare’s penalties and other efforts, “more hospitals are thinking more about appropriate use of antibiotics.” However, she said, “I think most hospitals do not have effective antibiotic stewardship programs yet.”

I has been 3 years...

since Danielle rescued Zoey and brought her to us to foster. Fred still believes we are fostering her and no one has come to adopt her. I guess we should let him in on the truth--Zoey found her fur-ever home 3 years ago.  (Although, sometimes it feels like 30 years!) She has come a long way in the time she has been with us. 

Arrival Dec 10, 2013

2013

2013

2014

2015

2015

2013

2016

Congress Passes Bill with Billions for Cancer Research

But some consumer groups say new standards for drug approvals could put patients at risk

Consumer Reports / Teresa Carr / December 7, 2016

Congress has passed the most expensive and far-reaching health reform bill since the Affordable Care Act in 2010.

The 21st Century Cures Act, which garnered widespread, bipartisan support in both the House and Senate, is expected to be signed into law by President Obama soon.

The bill signifies an investment of billions of dollars over the next decade to fight cancer, prevent and treat brain disorders, and harness enormous amounts of data to develop individualized treatments based on person’s environment, genes, and lifestyle.

But the bill also lowers the bar for the kind of scientific evidence companies must provide to gain the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval for their products. It would mean, for instance, that in some circumstances the FDA could rely in part on individual patient experiences with a drug or device, instead of evidence from large-scale, randomized controlled clinical trials.

Rep. Fred Upton, the Republican from Michigan who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee and co-sponsored the bill, says the Cures Act "expedites the approval of drugs and devices and includes literally billions of dollars in additional spending for health research so that we can find a cure and the answers to what patients are demanding today.”

Consumer groups, including Consumers Union, the policy and moblization arm of Consumer Reports, have deep concerns that this effort to speed medical innovation comes with a potentially harmful tradeoff for consumers.

“The unfortunate consequence of 21st Century Cures is that less thoroughly tested medications and medical devices will reach the market,” says Lisa McGiffert, director of Consumer Reports’ Safe Patient Project. “And that means that consumers will have less assurance that a new treatment will help and not harm them.”

More Research Dollars

The bill directs $4.8 billion over the next decade to research, in part, to fight cancer.

“Considering that one in two men and one in three women will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime, cancer research funding is an investment in yours, mine, and everyone’s health,” says David Pugach, vice president of federal relations at the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the advocacy arm of the ACS.

Pugach says 21st Century Cures represents a “historic opportunity” to accelerate cancer research. “This includes devoting more resources to improve and use new treatments like immunotherapy,” he says, “where the body’s own defenses are used against cancer—as well as creating ways for researchers to more easily share data so they can see patterns across studies more quickly.”

The bill also allocates funds to treat brain disorders, combat opioid abuse, improve suicide prevention programs, and provide mental health care to children. It establishes a task force for research on women who are pregnant or breastfeeding because these women are typically excluded from medical studies.

Faster Drug Approvals, But Lower Standards

The Cures Act loosens requirements for how drugs are studied and approved that have been in place since 1962.

Here's how it usually works: A company submits evidence from studies done under controlled conditions, comparing patients who received the treatment with those who didn't. The studies typically have to show that people who were given the new drug lived longer or felt better than those who didn't get it.

This kind of research can be expensive and time-consuming for drug companies to collect, says Diana Zuckerman, Ph.D., president of the National Center for Health Research, a nonprofit think tank focused on health research. Cancer drugs, for example, can take several years to show that a drug improves survival.

The Cures Act calls on the FDA to approve some drugs more quickly, based on less thorough testing. The problem with this, says Zuckerman, is that “getting drugs to market faster doesn’t help consumers at all if they turn out not to work or causes them harm.”

What Consumers Should Know

Once the Cures Act takes effect, consumers must be especially careful when considering a new medication or medical device, says Orly Avitzur, M.D., Consumer Reports’ medical director.

"When you have a choice, you may want to consider treatments with a proven track record, as you'll have more assurance that they work and are safe," Avitzur says. "Always make sure someone has taken the time to thoroughly explain all the options to you, and the possible risks and benefits of each."

Editor's Note: These materials were made possible by a grant from the state Attorney General Consumer and Prescriber Education Grant Program, which is funded by a multistate settlement of consumer fraud claims regarding the marketing of the prescription drug Neurontin (gabapentin).

Halloween past

Mammograms--when & how often should you get one

It is great timing for me that this article came to my attention. Not only is it Breast Cancer Awareness month but it also happens to be time for my annual exam. 

I met a new provider who specializes in Women's Health. We spoke about my confusion regarding how often I should get a mammogram. I know I am not alone when I say there isn't a woman out there that would rather do anything else then stand at the imaging machine and have their body parts squeezed and handled. In short, the doctor gave me her recommendation and I left the office with prescription in hand. 

Now I have to decide if I should or should not schedule the test. I want to make an informed decision and choose wisely. I am going to consider the information posted below, research a little more, and consider my personal situation before deciding to greet the big, cold machine once again. 

When to Get a Mammogram

Consumer Reports untangles all the conflicting advice about when 

to start getting them, and how often to have them done

Consumer Reports / By Catherine Roberts / October 01, 2016

Women have been urged for the last 50 years to have regular mammograms. So you probably think that by now experts agree on the best way to do that. They don’t.

In the past year, the American Cancer Society and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force came out with new advice, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists responded by reaffirming its old recommendations.

The three groups disagree on some key questions. When should you start screening? How often should you undergo mammography? At what age should you stop, if ever? They also have different takes on the benefits of clinical breast exams, or having a doctor manually examine breast tissue for lumps or other possible signs of cancer.

In the face of such inconsistent advice, what should you do?

First, don’t use the squabble as an excuse to skip breast-cancer screening. “Yes, the groups differ on some particulars, but they agree on this: Regular screening saves lives,” says Consumer Reports’ chief medical adviser, Marvin M. Lipman, M.D.

And while our experts lean toward the task force’s more conservative approach to breast-cancer screening—mammograms every other year, starting at age 50—they acknowledge that personal preference matters, too. “Women need to understand the evidence, and they should consider their own cancer worries so they make informed choices that are right for them,” Lipman says.

The questions below summarize the positions of the three groups, as well as our take. First, we discuss the other factors you should consider when choosing your breast-cancer-screening strategy.

Weigh the Benefits and Harms

Breast-cancer experts all look at essentially the same evidence, and all want to help women. So how do they end up with such different advice?

One reason is that some of them focus more on the benefits of screening while others are more concerned about the possible risks. Your approach also depends on how you balance those two issues.

The benefits of the test are obvious: fewer deaths from breast cancer. The American Cancer Society, for example, in its new recommendations points to research involving hundreds of thousands of women showing that regular screening has cut breast-cancer deaths by 35 to 50 percent.

The risks of breast cancer screening, while less familiar to many women and even some doctors, are of increasing concern to many experts. Here are the two main ones for you to consider:

• False alarms. Mammograms often cause false positives, or results that initially seem worrisome but prove to be harmless after follow-up tests. For example, a recent review by the task force found that 42 percent of women who get screened every two years for 10 years starting at age 50 will have at least one false positive mammography. Getting screened every year makes it more likely that you'll experience a false alarm, as does starting in your 40s. False alarms are worrisome not only because they can cause needless anxiety, but also because they can lead to more mammograms, which expose you to more radiation, and sometimes biopsies, which can cause infection.
• Overtreatment. Some cancers detected by mammography and then treated are unaggressive tumors that would have never harmed a woman. That's a problem, because treating those cancers exposes women to the potential harms of cancer therapy—surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, and the stress of a cancer diagnosis—with any benefits. While it's hard to know exactly how often that happens, the task force estimates that at least one in eight tumors detected by mammography are unaggressive ones that would never spread, and that for every woman whose life is save by mammography, two or three will be treated unnecessarily.

Factor In Your Risks

Your approach to breast cancer screening can depend not only on how you balance those risks and benefits but also on your chance of developing breast cancer, based on your personal and family health history.

The greater your risk, the more aggressive you may want to be by, for example, starting at age 40 or 45 instead of 50, or getting screened once a year instead of every two years.

What puts you at greater risk? Here are some of the most important risk factors:
• A family history of breast cancer.
• A personal history of noncancerous breast conditions, including atypical hyperplasia or dense breasts.
• Menstrual periods that started before age 12 or continued after 55, or not having a child before 30.
• A history of hormone replacement therapy.
• Obesity, smoking, or excessive alcohol consumption.
• A history of multiple chest X-rays to diagnose, for example, pneumonia or an injury.

4 Key Questions to Consider

Below are the key questions to think about when considering your approach to breast cancer screening, along with the positions of leading health groups on each issue, plus our advice.

1. When Should You Start Screening?

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: 40
American Cancer Society: 45
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: 50
Comments: Breast cancer becomes much more common after age 50, and starting sooner increases the chance of having false alarms and possibly unnecessary treatment. On the other hand, cancers that develop before menopause tend to be more aggressive, making it more important to catch them early.
CR's take: The more risk factors you have for breast cancer, the more reasonable it is to start getting the exams in your 40s.

2. How Often Should You Have a Mammogram?

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Every year.
American Cancer Society: Every year from 45-54, then every two years.
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: Every two years.
Comments: Breast cancer that appears before menopause tends to spread faster. But frequent tests make false alarms and unnecessary treatment more likely.
CR's take: If you opt to screen in your 40s because you are at high risk, annual tests make sense, switching to tests every other year when you reach age 50 or so. People who start screening in their 50s may be better off with testing every other year.  

3. When Should You Stop?

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Women 75 or older should talk with their doctor about whether testing makes sense for them.
American Cancer Society: Continue as long as you have a life expectancy of 10 or more years.
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: 74
Comments: There's little hard evidence about the benefits of breast cancer screening in women 75 and older. While researchers know that about a quarter of breast-cancer deaths occur in women over that age, they also say that the older and sicker you are, the less likely it is that mammography will extend your life.
CR's take: The Cancer Society’s advice to factor in your overall health and life expectancy makes sense. A woman already diagnosed with a different kind of cancer or dealing with another serious health problem such as COPD or heart failure might want to focus more on managing those problems; someone in good health, on the other hand, might prefer to continue screening, especially if she has risk factors for breast cancer.

4. What About Breast Exams?

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Every year starting at 19.
American Cancer Society: Not recommended.
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: Not enough evidence for or against to make a recommendation.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Every year starting at 19.
American Cancer Society: Not recommended.
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: Not enough evidence for or against to make a recommendation.
Comments: Though checking your breasts for lumps or having your doctor do it may seem sensible, little research backs up the practice. Instead, it may create anxiety and lead to needless follow-up tests.
CR's take: They make most sense for women at high risk. And if you notice something abnormal, tell your doctor.

Click for more info about a variety of screenings: 

www.consumerreports.org / www.consumerhealthchoices.org / www.choosingwisely.org/

For Smarter Healthcare, Ask Your Doctor These 5 Questions

The #choosingwisely team here at CR wants to remind you to always ask the 5 questions! http://

bddy.me/2d0GzWc 

ConsumerHealthChoices.org / David Ansley

These question can help you avoid unnecessary tests, medications, and procedures.

Before you get any test or treatment, ask your doctor these five questions. Why? Because some medical tests, medications, and procedures may not be right for you. A conversation with your doctor helps you avoid unnecessary, duplicative, or overly risky care.

What to Ask

1. Do I really need this test or procedure?
2. What are the risks and side effects?
3. Are there simpler, safer options?
4. What happens if I don't do anything?
5. How much does it cost, and will my insurance pay for it?

One Family's Story About Asking Questions

When Randi O. brought her 79-year-old father to the emergency room, fearing that he had suffered a stroke, it led to an important discovery: Don't be afraid to ask the hard questions. 

We'll Send You a Copy

To get a free copy of the 5 Questions to Ask Your Doctor wallet card, send an email to healthimpact@cr.consumer.org with your name and address.

More About Choosing Wisely

For details about needed (and unneeded) care in more than 100 situations, here is more information about the Choosing Wisely campaign. 

Join Our Campaign

To support our social media campaign, email a selfie you've taken of yourself with the wallet card. Send it to healthimpact@cr.consumer.org.

Is It Too Soon to Get the Flu Vaccine?

Costco, CVS, and Walgreens have started advertising the flu vaccine in the summer months, but for some, it might pay to wait before you vaccinate

Consumer Reports / Julia Calderone / September 09, 2016

If you’ve visited your local Costco, CVS, Walgreens, or other stores recently, you might have noticed advertisements for this year's flu vaccines.

Is it a good idea to get the shot now, before flu arrives? Or will that undermine its effectiveness in January and February, when flu season is in full swing?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend that most people get vaccinated as soon as the shot becomes available (which can be as early as late July). That way, you’ll be protected when flu season typically starts around mid-October, and when it peaks from December through February. 

Early vaccination is an especially good idea for children six months to 8 years old because, unlike the rest of us, they need two doses of the flu vaccine given 28 days apart, says William Schaffner, M.D., a professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and a consultant to the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. So if they get their first shot in early September and their second in early October, they’ll likely be protected by the time the flu arrives.

On the the other hand, two groups of people might benefit from waiting a little bit before getting the shot: people 60 and older and those who have a compromised immune system due to conditions such asautoimmune disease, HIV, or those undergoing chemotherapy treatment.

That’s because in those people, research suggests there’s about a four-month window after getting the vaccine when the body is best able to fight the virus. 

After that, for at least some people in those groups, the immune system’s virus-fighting ability begins to wane.

Schaffner emphasizes that this evidence is not definitive, and that even with declining protection the flu vaccine still seems to provide some protection after four months. Still, he says, people who are older or have underlying chronic diseases might want to wait until late September or early October to be sure that their protection will cover the entire influenza season, which can extend into March, or even dribble into early April.

It doesn't matter whether you get the flu vaccine from your primary care doctor or your local pharmacy, Schaffner says. They’re both perfectly safe places to get it. The most important thing is that you get it. 

FDA Finally Says 'No' to Antibacterial Soaps

Consumer Reports / Lauren Cooper / September 02, 2016

Here's why—and the products to watch out for

The Food and Drug Administration is banning the sale of antibacterial soaps and body washes after manufacturers failed to prove that the products’ active ingredients are safe and effective.

“Consumers may think antibacterial washes are more effective at preventing the spread of germs, but we have no scientific evidence that they are any better than plain soap and water,” said Janet Woodcock, M.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “In fact, some data suggests that antibacterial ingredients may do more harm than good over the long term.”

The ban applies to products containing 19 antibacterial ingredients, including the two most common ones: triclosan, which is found in liquid soaps, and triclocarban, found in bar soaps. Manufacturers have until Sept. 6, 2017 to either reformulate products with any of those 19 ingredients or remove them from the market.  

The ban does not apply to other products containing those ingredients, including toothpastes and cleaning products. And it doesn't apply to antiseptic hand cleaners such as Germ-X and Purell, which typically contain alcohol and related compounds and don't pose the same risks.

The Dangers

Consumer Reports has long argued that antibacterial chemicals in household products likely do more harm than good.

“These chemicals could be contributing to the global crisis of antibiotic resistance," said Michael Hansen, Ph.D, senior staff scientist at Consumer Reports.

Triclosan, for example, kills bacteria in much the same way as an antibiotic, and research suggests that the widespread use of it might be contributing to the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

“Some bacteria are close to evolving resistance to all antibiotics as a result of the overuse of antibiotics—a dangerous situation that could lead to deaths from once easily treated infections,” Hansen said. "These products and these ingredients may just make the problem worse."

Antibacterial compounds in consumer cleaning products might pose other health risks, too.

“There is evidence that exposure to triclosan interferes with the production and activity of hormones in the body, which could contribute to infertility, early puberty, obesity, and other problems,” said Marvin M. Lipman, M.D., Consumer Reports chief medical advisor.

“And with little evidence that they are more effective than soap and water, they are not worth the risk,” Lipman said. “When it comes to fighting disease, hand washing is key, but using regular soap and water does the job," he said.

When soap and water are not available, an alcohol-based hand sanitizer such as Germ-X and Purell is OK. (Click on www.consumerreports.org/health/fda-says-no-antibacterial-soap to watch the video on the most effective hand washing technique.) 

Products to Avoid

Manufacturers have a full year to reformulate or remove their antibacterial soaps, and they can continue to sell antibacterial toothpastes and cleaners. But Consumer Reports health and safety experts say you should avoid them, starting now.

We found triclosan listed as an ingredient in Noxzema Ultimate Clear Bacteria Fighting Cleanser, Dial Complete Antibacterial Foaming Hand Wash, and CVS Antibacterial Gentle Cleansing bar, as well as in Colgate Total toothpaste. And we found triclocarban listed on Dial For Men Power Scrub soap bar, Rite Aid Renewal Antibacterial Gold deodorant soap, and others.

Those and other banned antibacterial ingredients are also included in many household cleaners. So avoid products that have an "antibacterial" claim on their label, or that contain any of these newly banned chemicals:

• Cloflucarban
• Fluorosalan
• Hexachlorophene
• Hexylresorcinol
• Iodine complex (ammonium ether sulfate and polyoxyethylene sorbitan monolaurate)
• Iodine complex (phosphate ester of alkylaryloxy polyethylene glycol)
• Nonylphenoxypoly (ethyleneoxy) ethanoliodine
• Poloxamer-iodine complex
• Povidone-iodine 5 to 10 percent
• Undecoylium chloride iodine complex
• Methylbenzethonium chloride
• Phenol (greater than 1.5 percent)
• Phenol (less than 1.5 percent)
• Secondary amyltricresols
• Sodium oxychlorosene
• Tribromsalan
• Triclocarban
• Triclosan
• Triple dye

Consumers Union Urges FTC to Investigate Mylan for Possible Antitrust Violations

Reprinted from CONSUMERS UNION
POLICY & ACTION FROM CONSUMER REPORTS
www.consumersunion.org

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

WASHINGTON, DC – Consumers Union, the policy and mobilization arm of Consumer Reports, today sent a letter urging the FTC to investigate Mylan for possible anti-competitive practices and antitrust law violations, noting troubling reports of Mylan’s efforts to undercut EpiPen competitors and suppress consumer choice.

Consumers Union describes the five-fold price hike of EpiPen as a “calculated decision by Mylan to exploit its monopoly power to enrich itself and its executives at the expense of the millions of consumers who use this life-saving drug and delivery system as a failsafe,” after a review of the situation produced no legitimate justification for the rapid price hikes. While the letter notes that taking advantage of a marketplace monopoly does not, by itself, violate antitrust laws, the consumer group calls into question several examples of Mylan potentially running afoul of the law.

“It is a violation for a company to maintain its monopoly power by sabotaging or undercutting efforts by competitors to give consumers a choice,” said George Slover, senior policy counsel for Consumers Union. “There are indications that Mylan may have resorted to questionable practices to block competition and sustain its monopoly. The FTC has the authority to prosecute anticompetitive marketplace abuses and we urge the Commission to thoroughly investigate and take appropriate action based on what it uncovers.”

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman yesterday announced an investigation into Mylan’s practices and Senators Klobuchar and Blumenthal have also called on the FTC to investigate the company’s conduct.

Visit ConsumersUnion.org to read the full letter.

Consumers Union is the policy and mobilization arm of Consumer Reports.  Consumers Union works for health reform, food and product safety, financial reform, and other consumer issues in Washington, D.C., the states, and in the marketplace. Consumer Reports is the world’s largest independent product-testing organization.  Using its more than 50 labs, auto test center, and survey research center, the nonprofit rates thousands of products and services annually.  Founded in 1936, Consumer Reports has over 8 million subscribers to its magazine, website, and other publications.