November 16, 2009

Unemployment and hard economic times have hit hard in migrant communities in the United States. As a result, we're now seeing a reverse trend: Instead of migrants in the U.S. sending remittances to their families back in Mexico, some Mexican families are sending financial support to their unemployed relatives in the U.S. "Statistics measuring the extent of what experts are calling reverse remittances are hard to come by. But interviews in Mexico with government officials, money-transfer operators, immigration experts, and relatives of out-of-work migrants show that a transaction that was rarely noticed before appears to be on the rise."
Analysts are seeing a decrease in remittances from the United States. The Bank of Mexico reported that remittances this year has dropped 13.4% since last year. This financial support can be very helpful to families in Mexico. An estimated 5.9% of Mexican households, about 1.8 million families, receive economic support from abroad. Remittances make up approximately 19% of the total income for urban households and 27% for rural households.............
In addition, with the tough economic times, some migrants are heading back to Mexico. However, the numbers are not that large. The Pew Hispanic Center found in July that there was a steep decrease in the number of Mexicans heading up North, but there has not been a mass exodus of migrants workers in the U.S. heading back to Mexico. Migrant families say it usually takes a great effort to send relatives to the United States and it can be very expensive. If the migrants return home to Mexico, it might be difficult to send them back up when economic conditions are better. (Full Story)

---

Very interesting article on caloric inequality. The article includes an image of the World Food Program's "Fat Map". "The mis-distribution of food goes deeper than even the 'Fat Map' implies. In India, for example, more than 300 million overweight people coexist with another 300 million who starve. Chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease that often stem from overeating are growing at a faster rate in developing countries than in the most prosperous West. In my own region, the Middle East, obesity is skyrocketing, especially among young people." The author points out the problems from consuming and wasting so much food. Obesity-related health spending is around $150-$200 billion, which is more than all foreign aid worldwide. Households in the United States discard 14% of their food. Grocery stores and restaurants throw away 27 million tons. Food waste costs in the U.S. add up to over $100 billion each year. She even points out the absurdity of eating as a competitive sport. Last year Joey Chestnut ate 68 hot dogs in 10 minutes -- which is more than a week's worth of calories for a hungry African. (Full Story)

---

In the face of health care reform, which would cut drug costs, the pharmaceutical industry is rising the price of prescription drugs. "In the last year, the industry has raised the wholesale prices of brand-name prescription drugs by about 9 percent, according to industry analysts. That will add more than $10 billion to the nation's drug bill, which is on track to exceed $300 billion this year." Some analysts says this is the highest rate increase since 1992. This year's increase means that the average annual cost for brand-name prescription drugs is $200 higher than last year.
Critics say drug-makers are trying to establish higher prices before Congress passes legislation that will aim to curb drug spending. Drug-makers had even made an agreement with the White House and the Senate Finance Committee that they would trim $8 billion a year -- $80 billion over ten years -- from the nation's drug bill by giving rebates to older Americans and the government. However, "this year's price increase would effectively cancel out the savings from at least the first year of the Senate Finance agreement. And some critics say the surge in drug prices could change the dynamics of the entire 10-year deal." As one health care analyst for Consumers Union said, "It makes it much easier for the drug companies to pony up the $80 billion because they'll be making more money." A professor that studies pharmaceutical economics and has analyzed drug pricing found that when there is major legislation pending that affects the pharmaceutical industry, we see a run-up in price increases. Another health economist pointed out a similar pattern was found when Congress added drug benefits to Medicare a few years ago. Just as the federally subsidized drug insurance program was taking effect, the drug industry raised prices by a wide margin.
Drug companies say the price increase is not related to health care reform and that they have to raise prices to maintain profits so that they can continue to invest in research and development of new drugs. The senior vice president for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America say their critics are political motivated, "In AARP's skewed view of the world, medicine are always looked at as a cost and never seen as a savings -- even though medicines often reduce unnecessary hospitalization, help avoid costly medical procedures, and increase productivity through better prevention and management of chronic diseases." I don't think that's how the AARP is looking at medicine. His assessment is a "skewed view". Of course the AARP recognizes the benefits of medicine. And all those benefits he listed are great things -- and that's why medicine should be more affordable and readily available to those that need it. It's unfair to gouge people for the medicines they need, all in the name of even bigger profits. (Full Story)