by Hollis Wormsby, Jr.
Uproar Over Sterling Comments Another Case of Misplaced Priorities
We all know by now that a few weeks ago the owner of the LA Clippers, one Donald Sterling, was recorded making racist remarks to his mistress. In the aftermath of the release of these tapes African American leaders around the country flew into an uproar and demanded immediate action. Swift action was demanded and quotes and responses were sought from everywhere.
At the same time on Urban radio stations across the same country, hip hop artists are putting out songs, I guess you can call them that, calling our women b’s and h’s, encouraging violence in our communities, and spewing all kinds of venomous rap about just about any and every body and the same leaders who demanded action on Sterling sit amazingly silent.
One of the people put forward to save the day and buy the team on behalf of redemption was none other than Jay Z.  Jay Z in his own rap career has rapped about selling drugs, degrading women, shouted that his money could buy him anything and has promoted a line-up of artists who have put out some of the most vile examples of today’s hip hop culture.
How at one level can we rise to the level of holy condemnation because of the words an old white man says to his mistress and yet, remain silent as hip hop artists say things that are even more vile everyday? Why is that we can find righteous indignation for the controversy of the moment but yet we cannot commit to a realistic long time strategy and effort to right the wrongs in our own community.
Where is the national outcry on the level of violence being perpetrated by an element in our community?  Where is the strategy to take back our community?  Where is our righteous indignation at the element that is robbing old people, breaking into people’s homes and generally making our community a place that even those of us that can afford to, are beginning to seek escape from.
I am tired of the excitement that each new Donald Sterling or Trayvon Martin case generates, while issues that put our children at daily risk are ignored. We need a civil rights movement on creating stability in our neighborhoods again. And by movement I don’t mean a rally where we make a few speeches and go home. I mean a movement where we identify the challenges in the community, and form committees to seek solutions. I mean a movement where we commit to stay in the struggle together until we see a difference. I mean a movement where the bad guys realize we are a force to be feared and choose to get the hell out of our face because it is in their best interest.
The great threat to our community is not the words some old, belligerent white man says to his mistress. The great threat is the sense of complacency that allows evil to go unchecked, and the tendency of good people to want to bury their head in the sand rather than challenge the evil. Or at least that’s the way I see it.
Special shout out to Brother Jones at Talk of the Town Barber Shop who challenged me to write this column after a conversation we had there.
(Do you have a question or comment on this column?  Look me up on Facebook/HollisWormsby or email me at hjwormsby@aol.com.)

By Charles S. Ingoglia

One in five American seniors suffers from depression. The illness can be crippling at any age, but it wreaks an especially harrowing toll among the elderly.
Fortunately, 80 percent of those who obtain medical care for depression will see their symptoms improve, and in many cases disappear altogether. With the prevalence of depression among seniors twice as high as in the general population, it’s critical for older Americans to have access to adequate treatment.
Yet the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently proposed a rule change that would have made it harder for seniors to get the medications they need. The sharp reversal of policy was unwise both clinically and on cost-containment grounds.
The change concerned the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit. Thankfully, Washington lawmakers were able to halt the proposal.
But lawmakers must remain vigilant to ensure that seniors dealing with depression and other devastating illnesses continue to have access to the prescription drugs they need – as the same proposal could easily resurface in the coming months.
The proposed rule would have eroded a long-standing policy guaranteeing seniors access to medications considered vital to their health. Currently, insurers are required to cover “all or substantially all” drugs in six “protected classes” that pertain to treatments for depression, seizures, autoimmune disorders, transplant rejection, cancer, and HIV.
But, with an eye to the short-term bottom line, CMS had proposed stripping antidepressants, antipsychotics, and immunosuppressants for transplant rejection of their protected status. If adopted, insurers would no longer have had to cover the full range of therapies available.  Seniors would have seen their treatment options reduced and could have even lost access to medications they’ve long taken.
The CMS even acknowledged that seniors and their doctors would have had less to work with in finding effective treatments. According to its own analysis, patients who currently have access to 57 mental health drugs could have seen their options dwindle to 15. Those who rely on antipsychotics, another affected class of medicines, could have seen their options slashed by 12. The agency defended reduced choice on the ground of saving costs.
Not surprisingly, physicians and patient advocates took a different view. They pointed to the negative impact such a change would have had on the well-being of many patients, a consideration difficult to capture solely in budget terms.
Doctors have long observed that different patients respond in different ways to the same medication, especially for complex illnesses like schizophrenia and depression. According to the largest trial of multiple medication treatment for depression, conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health, only half of participants responded to the first treatment they received. The other half had to try up to four different treatment strategies involving multiple medication regimens before they found relief.
Not having access to a full range of medicines can have profound health consequences. Those suffering from mental illness live on average 25 years less than other Americans, due in large part to complications from treatable chronic medical conditions.
In the case of depression, studies have found that depression among the elderly nearly triples the risk of stroke. Depressed seniors also have more difficulty recovering from heart attacks, hip fractures, and such infectious diseases as pneumonia.
For the 2.4 million American adults who suffer from schizophrenia, effective treatment is critical. Almost half of those diagnosed with the illness attempt suicide. But with appropriate medication, that risk diminishes significantly. In fact, nearly 50 percent of patients experience positive outcomes with treatment.
Restricting patient choice does not provide effective care, nor does it control costs. Switching patients to cheaper drugs may have saved money in the short term, but the cost of dealing with poorer health outcomes would soon have more than offset any such savings. As one medical journal puts it, “Nothing is more expensive than treatment failure.”
This is especially true for some of Medicare’s most vulnerable patients. A full 83 percent of Part D prescriptions for antipsychotics and 51 percent for antidepressants are filled by low-income seniors. These seniors are not only in poorer health, they’re particularly susceptible to treatment disruption. When they can’t take their medicines as prescribed, they often end up in need of inpatient care, at huge cost to the system.
Medicare Part D has been one of the government’s most successful healthcare programs, boasting 90 percent participation and a 94 percent approval rating. The program already has effective tools to manage the use of drugs within protected classes and keep costs down.
While Part D is safe for now, lawmakers must remain ready to defend it.

Charles S. Ingoglia is the senior vice president of public policy and practice improvement for the National Council for Community Behavioral Health, the unifying voice of America’s community mental health and substance use treatment organizations.

   Powdered alcohol is just the latest in a series of drugs that have posed a threat to Alabama. Along with synthetic marijuana and other products, Alabama is in danger, especially the children in our state. The Alabama Legislature must take action to prevent powdered alcohol from being accessible and causing more harm to our state and to our children.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau briefly granted approval to a new powdered form of alcohol earlier this month. Now, shortly a couple of weeks later, the agency withdrew its approval, saying the approval had been given in error. This was by far a terrible mistake.
This incident has brought the issue and legality of powdered alcohol to national media headlines and has parents and addiction experts and counselors across the nation worried. It is important that our state legislature take pre-emptive action before this dangerous product starts showing up in our local grocery and convenience stores.
It has come to my attention that many Alabamians are unaware of what powdered alcohol is and how it works. The product is not new and has been sold abroad since the early 1970s. However, it has never been sold or produced in the United States. Powdered alcohol works just like coffee or tea. There is a reason we haven’t had it and that reason has not changed.
We can no longer sugarcoat problems, especially not here in Alabama. Underage drinking does exist and it’s a battle we will continue to fight. Parents and groups across the country have come out in strong opposition of powdered alcohol. This product would be easy for those underage to obtain. It can be extremely dangerous, especially if one were to snort the powder rather than mixing it.
Companies that make the substance have warned that snorting their product can get a person drunk almost instantly. This alone could easily lead to abuse and overdosing, in addition to the countless amount of accidents and fatalities of innocent people this drug will cause. The chemicals used to turn the alcohol into a powder are some of the same elements found in our cabinets like detergents. Putting this into your body just isn’t healthy!
We still do not have answers to many questions. We do not know the long-term consequences of this drug or how ingesting it, without mixing it will affect the body. We do not know if it will cause toxicity in the blood or what effect it may have on vital organs. These questions still remain unanswered.
This drug will easily get into the hands of underage adults and teenagers. Powdered alcohol is easy to conceal which makes it easier to sneak it into places like schools, movie theaters, or sporting events. Today teachers are constantly having to check students’ containers from home to make sure the water bottle actually contains water and that the sweet tea is actually sweet tea. How far is this going to go? At one time, the website of the company that produces this powdered alcohol actually recommended sneaking it into concerts and sprinkling it on food!
For a company to suggest illegal actions makes me uneasy. If they are willing to endorse crimes, I’m worried that they may be just as irresponsible with their product itself. Clearly this company does not care about the safety of others or the danger they are willing to cause.
Adults can make their own choices. It is not up to me to legislate the choices of adults in our state. But this issue is not about letting grown-ups make their own choices. This is about public health and protecting our children and the people of our state.
This drug is a danger to the state of Alabama and to our children. Powdered alcohol is a dangerous substance that could potentially cause significant health problems, including addiction and overdosing. At the very least, the federal government needs to do more research before allowing this product to be sold in American stores.
I believe that powdered alcohol is a threat to Alabama. It is hard enough to keep our kids safe and to keep them in school, now this is just another substance parents and law enforcement across the state have to worry about.
Legislators must be proactive about this issue and by any means necessary fight to keep powdered alcohol out of Alabama.
Representative Rod Scott

 In my work across the state of Alabama, I have noticed when the subject of “charter schools” is brought up, there’s a lot of misconceptions about what they are and who they actually serve. I immediately find myself having to dispel the myths and untruths about them.
This week, the Black Alliance for Educational Options (BAEO) and education reform organizations all over the country are celebrating National Charter School Week. In honor of that, I’d like to take a moment to explain why I support charter schools, and why I think you should too.
Charter schools are unique public schools that are allowed the freedom to be more innovative while being held accountable for advancing student achievement. Because they are public schools, they are open to all children; do not charge tuition; and do not have special entrance requirements. Charter schools were created to help improve our nation’s public school system and offer parents another public school option to better meet their child’s specific needs. Successful charter schools in other states have taken advantage of the freedom they are afforded to extend the school day to provide more time on task; adjust the curriculum to meet students’ needs; create a distinctive culture or special theme; and develop groundbreaking learning models that redefine the classroom and reflect the latest research on effective teacher training. Like other public schools, charters are funded by local, state and federal tax dollars based on enrollment; and they are open to anyone who wishes to enroll.
I will not make the case that charter schools are a one-size-fits-all solution to the educational challenges of our state. Charter schools come with challenges, and I would never argue they would solve all the issues Alabama’s public education system faces. However, studies have shown that charter schools work for children when they are carefully and thoughtfully planned and implemented with fidelity and with high expectations.
There are scores of examples of great charter schools that are doing amazing things in the world of education. They inspire our best and brightest educators to design and operate schools for children who traditionally have been underserved in the traditional public school system. Charter schools have particularly created new educational pathways for low-income and working-class families who otherwise may have been stuck in failing schools.
Charter schools serve the primary purpose of inspiring innovation in education as well as offering members of the community an alternative choice in how their children are educated. Instead of low-income and working class families being trapped in schools they’re zoned for, charter schools offer an added option for parents to select if they’re not satisfied with the public school their child would otherwise attend.
When it comes to educational options, there are two questions any community needs to ask itself. Should families be forced to go to a failing or inadequate school without an alternative? And should a child’s zip code determine the quality of education they receive?
To both of these questions, my answer is no. I hope yours is too.

Duncan Kirkwood
State Director
Alabama Black Alliance for Educational Options