Medline launches Curad Antiviral Face Mask
MUNDELEIN, Ill. — Medline on Tuesday introduced the Curad Antiviral Face Mask, a face mask that inactivates flu viruses within five minutes of contact, according to the company.
The Curad Antiviral Face Mask was found to inactivate 99.99% of laboratory-tested flu viruses, including imminent pandemic and seasonal strains of influenza viruses, such as H1N1, this year’s dominant flu strain in the United States. Traditional face masks act only as a simple barrier or filter and do nothing to neutralize the harmful germs that remain active on the mask itself.
"Now, more than ever, people need to break their cold and flu routine and be even more vigilant against flu viruses," stated Martie Moore, Medline chief nursing officer. "The Curad Antiviral Face Mask is an easy, accessible and direct way to break the cycle and help stop the spread of germs."
One of the main benefits of the Curad Antiviral Face Mask is that it can provide protection from cross-contamination. With conventional masks, the outer facing of the mask is frequently touched by the user, who then touches other things or people passing on the flu germs. Since the CURAD Antiviral Face Mask inactivates 99.99% of the tested flu viruses on five minutes’ contact, the risk of spreading the flu virus is greatly reduced.
The Curad Antiviral Face Mask works by incorporating proprietary technology that uses a combination of three natural and safe ingredients — citric acid, zinc and copper. The outer white active layer absorbs infectious droplets and locks them inside, where they are inactivated by exposure to citric acid. The inner blue active layer contains copper and zinc ions that are toxic to pathogens. The face mask can help protect against flu viruses and has been recognized as a major breakthrough in flu protection, winning the 2012 Chicago Innovation Awards.
"The Curad Antiviral Face Mask should be one of the most important items in any home’s medicine cabinet or traveling first aid kit right alongside hand antiseptics, adhesive bandages, alcohol pads, tape and exam gloves," Moore suggested.
Economic analysis: Prescription-only status for PSE would drive up physician visits, healthcare costs
WASHINGTON — According to an economic impact analysis released Tuesday by Martin Kennedy, a former professor of economics who spent seven years on the faculty of Middle Tennessee State University, adopting a prescription requirement for pseudoephedrine products in Tennessee would result in an influx of more than 497,000 additional physician office visits at a direct cost of $44.3 million annually.
"A prescription mandate for pseudoephedrine is a costly and ineffective approach to dealing with Tennessee’s meth problem," stated Tennessee State Sen. Mae Beavers, R-Mt. Juliet. "With direct costs estimated at over $44 million dollars and indirect costs substantially higher, such a proposal would need to guarantee positive results to even be considered. Yet there is no guarantee that a prescription requirement would truly address the real sources of the overall meth problem since it does nothing to deal with the near-constant flow of meth from outside of Tennessee, or the necessary treatment of those who suffer from serious drug addiction," he said. "State leaders need to focus on balanced policies that don’t burden law-abiding Tennessee families if they are going to make real progress in this fight."
"I approached this study with a very open mind. As a Tennessee citizen and a father of five, I believe very strongly that something more must be done to tackle the scourge of meth production in our state," Kennedy said. "As an economist, however, there’s no question that when conducting a detailed analysis of a prescription requirement, the new costs associated with such a policy change are striking and considerable. I hope that these empirical findings will provide policymakers with a fuller understanding of the potential impacts of the prescription-only approach."
"Members of the Tennessee General Assembly are to be commended for looking for new policy solutions to the state’s ongoing methamphetamine problem," stated Scott Melville, president and CEO for the Consumer Healthcare Products Association. "But as Dr. Kennedy’s new analysis makes clear, a prescription requirement for safe and effective cold and allergy medicines containing pseudoephedrine would have significant — and in our view — unnecessary economic consequences for consumers, healthcare providers, businesses and the state as a whole," he said. "Tennessee families should not be punished for the actions of a criminal minority."
Kennedy’s study was supported by a grant from CHPA.
Survey: Latinos see diabetes as biggest health concern for their families
BOSTON — A new NPR/Robert Wood Johnson Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health poll released Tuesday found that Latinos in America see diabetes as the biggest health problem for their own families.
Nearly 1-in-5 (19%) Latinos said diabetes is the biggest health problem facing their families. The next most cited problem, cancer, is mentioned by just 1-in-20 Latinos (5%). Diabetes was the biggest health problem reported by both immigrant (16%) and non-immigrant Latinos (22%).
"These findings are surprising," stated Robert Blendon, Richard L. Menschel Professor of Health Policy and Political Analysis at the Harvard School of Public Health. "Previous polls have shown that Latinos see cancer as the most important health problem facing the country. But when asked about their own families, Latinos cite diabetes as the biggest problem."
Researchers have long cited diabetes as a threat for the nation’s Latino population. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hispanic adults are 1.7 times more likely than non-Hispanic white adults to have been diagnosed with diabetes by a physician, and 1.5 times more likely to die from diabetes.
Prior studies have shown that obesity rates among immigrants increase as their duration of residence in the U.S. increases, and suggest that this may be attributable in part to changes in lifestyle, including unhealthy diet. However, the poll suggests that Latino immigrants generally do not perceive their diets as less healthy in the U.S. About 4-in-10 (38%) immigrants said their diet is healthier in the United States, and about the same number (39%) sees their diet about as healthy. Only 1-in-5 (21%) see their diet as less healthy.
Cuban immigrants are significantly more likely to see their diet as more healthy in the U.S. (60%) than are immigrants of Dominican (37%), Mexican (36%) or South American (21%) heritage.
Among Latinos who have received medical care during the past twelve months, about one in five (19%) rate the health services they received as fair or poor. Among Latino groups, those reporting care was fair or poor range from 24% among Latinos of Mexican heritage to 7% among those of Cuban ancestry.
Over half of all Latinos (52%) are not confident that they would have enough money or health insurance to pay for a major illness.