#thcb

The world of live sauce disposables is evolving fast, with multi-cannabinoid options gaining attention among adult hemp consumers. The HALF BAK’D SAUCED THCP + THCA + THCB + D9 Live Sauce 4G Disposable is a prime example of how advanced formulations and strain variety are shaping modern hemp products.

This product comes in a diverse lineup of strains designed to suit different preferences:

Ube Cream (Indica) – smooth and relaxing

Pink Picasso (Hybrid) – balanced and versatile

Holy Moly (Hybrid) – mellow yet flavorful

Kiwi Jam (Indica) – rich and calming

Raspberry Cough (Sativa) – uplifting and aromatic

Magic Milk (Sativa) – light, energetic, and creative

Sugarland (Hybrid) – smooth hybrid profile

Sour Sangria (Sativa) – bright and zesty

PB+J Soufflé (Sauce’d Exotix) – unique exotic flavor experience

At Vape123, we focus on curating hemp-derived products that combine advanced formulations, strain diversity, and quality standards. This ensures adult consumers have access to premium, compliant, and transparent options beyond traditional vaping products.

#sundayjoint --> (THCB) Birds and Popcorn

A musical journey with birds and popcorn --> Dead Can Dance, the Disneyland theme, alongside Yusef Lateefs beautiful version of Satie’s “First Gymnopedie” and ends with Ammer & Console.

How i found this little gem?

It started with Yusef Lateefs, i heard this song somewhere on spotify, felt in love and started looking for a video of this song which I can share here. As you might know, we are here in Germany... music videos mostly are blocked.

I klicked on all 3 or 4 search results, all blocked.

By MARKO VUJICIC, MD

Dental care has traditionally been financed and delivered separately from medical care. This is despite the Surgeon General’s report in 2000 that emphasizes the importance of oral health to whole body health. Now, new data show the consequences of the approach taken in U.S. health care policy to oral health.

Medicaid Children Seeing Big Gains in Access to Dental Care

The American Dental Association Health Policy Institute (HPI) recently launched The Oral Health Care System: A State-By-State Analysis. This first-of-its-kind data repository brings together data from multiple sources related to oral health and is meant to serve policy makers and researchers. One of the most significant findings from these data is that access to dental care has been increasing steadily among Medicaid children for more than a decade.

Nationally, the percent of Medicaid children who visited a dentist within the past twelve months went from 29% in 2000 to 48% in 2013, the most recent year for which data are available. What is striking is that the trend is remarkably widespread across states, with all but one state experiencing gains over this time frame. As a result, the gap in dental care utilization between Medicaid- and privately-insured children has been shrinking steadily. In fact, it narrowed in every single state for which we have data between 2005 and 2013 (see figure below). There are two states – Hawaii and Texas – where there is actually a “reverse gap”: children enrolled in Medicaid are more likely to visit a dentist than children who have private dental benefits. Moreover, this progress has all been happening during a time when the number of children enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) has been rising steadily. In 2013, nearly four out of ten children in the U.S. were enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP compared to two out of ten in 2000.

Title of Figure: Gap in Dental Care Utilization Between Medicaid-Enrolled Children and Children with Private Dental Benefits, 2005 and 2013

Source: Vujicic M, Nasseh, K. Gap in dental care utilization between Medicaid and privately insured children narrows, remains large for adults. Health Policy Institute Research Brief. American Dental Association. December 2015. Available from:

Trends for Adults Are Much Different

In contrast, the trends for adults are very different. The gap in dental care use between Medicaid- and privately-insured adults is much wider than it is for children and has actually increased in several states in recent years. Adults – especially Millennials – are nearly three times more likely than children to report avoiding dental care they need because of cost. In fact, one out of four low-income adults report that they have avoided dental care they needed in the past year due to financial reasons.

Dental care presents affordability challenges to adults to a much greater degree than any other type of health care service. Emergency room visits for dental conditions in the U.S. are on the rise, a trend that is being driven entirely by young adults.  Even among adults with private dental benefits, dental care use is declining in most states and the number one reason adults with private dental benefits do not visit the dentist is cost.

The barriers to dental care that adults face are leading to some troubling physical, social, and emotional effects. New data show that more than one out of three low-income adults say they avoid smiling and 17 percent report difficulty doing usual activities because of the condition of their mouth and teeth. Nearly one out of four low-income adults and 14 percent of all adults report that their oral health issues have led them to reduce participation in social activities.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Looking forward, policymakers and the research community ought to focus on three things to address some of the key challenges facing the U.S. oral health care system.

First, there needs to be a continued and sustained focus on implementing evidence-based policies when it comes to access. The states with the largest gains in access to dental care among Medicaid children over the past decade are those that implemented comprehensive, multi-pronged reforms. For example, Connecticut, Texas, and Maryland reformed their Medicaid programs by focusing on provider and Medicaid beneficiary outreach, provider reimbursement increases,innovations in care delivery models, and streamlined administrative procedures and saw remarkable improvements. It is important to note that the improvements in access to dental care in these three states, as well as others, did not involve any major increase in the number of dental care providers. In fact, there is strong evidence that there is significant excess capacity in the dental care system today. Nationwide, one out of three dentists report they are “not busy enough and can see more patients” suggesting that policymakers ought to focus on interventions that leverage existing unused capacity.

Second, there need to be a rethink of how oral health is defined and measured. The current focus of many government agency data collection efforts, for example,is to measure the presence and severity of dental disease and the frequency and type of dental care services people use. There is very little emphasis, in contrast, on measuring the contribution of oral health to physical, social, and emotional well being. These are the ultimate outcomes of interest that any dental care delivery system ought to be designed around. The new measures of oral health status recently developed by HPI are a significant advancement in this area but are meant to be a starting point for others, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, to build on. A robust oral health status measurement system would also enable a shift toward outcomes-based delivery and reimbursement models, a critical future direction in health care in the United States.

Third, policy makers need to reconsider how dental care for adults is handled in state and federal policy. Within Medicaid, adult dental benefits are optional and most states provide only basic coverage. Under the Affordable Care Act, dental care for adults is not considered “essential” and thus, dental benefits coverage is not part of the individual mandate. Implementing a comprehensive dental benefit for Medicaid adults in the 22 states that currently lack one is estimated to cost $1.6 to $1.8billion per year. The estimated state portion of this bill translates to about 1 percent of total Medicaid spending. Compare this to the $1.6 billion spent each year on hospital emergency room visits for dental conditions, one third of which is paid for by Medicaid. Newly published research from the NBER suggests that the dental care system has the capacity to absorb the spike in demand for dental care arising from large-scale expansions of dental benefits to Medicaid adults. There are also numerous state experiences to draw on that serve as good practices in managing adult dental benefits in Medicaid. Beyond Medicaid, insurers are approaching dental benefits for children and adults differently within the health insurance marketplaces. While more and more private medical insurance plans in the health insurance marketplaces are covering dental benefits for children, there are far fewer options for adults. This is despite the fact that dental care is a high priority among adults, especially young adults,who are shopping for health insurance.

As a former U.S. Surgeon General said, “you can’t be healthy without good oral health.” There is emerging evidence that oral health is related to conditions outside of the mouth, like diabetes, pregnancy, and even mental health. Health care policy in the United States clearly emphasizes the importance of oral health for children. It might be time to reconnect mouth and body for adults.

Marko Vujicic is Managing Vice President, Health Policy Resources Center at the American Dental Association where he is responsible for overseeing all of the Association’s policy research activities. Prior to joining the American Dental Association, he was Senior Economist with The World Bank in Washington D.C. where he directed the global health workforce policy program. He was also Labor Economist at the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland.

By MARKO VUJICIC, MD

Dental care has traditionally been financed and delivered separately from medical care. This is despite the Surgeon General’s report in 2000 that emphasizes the importance of oral health to whole body health. Now, new data show the consequences of the approach taken in U.S. health care policy to oral health.

Medicaid Children Seeing Big Gains in Access to Dental Care

The American Dental Association Health Policy Institute (HPI) recently launched The Oral Health Care System: A State-By-State Analysis. This first-of-its-kind data repository brings together data from multiple sources related to oral health and is meant to serve policy makers and researchers. One of the most significant findings from these data is that access to dental care has been increasing steadily among Medicaid children for more than a decade.

Nationally, the percent of Medicaid children who visited a dentist within the past twelve months went from 29% in 2000 to 48% in 2013, the most recent year for which data are available. What is striking is that the trend is remarkably widespread across states, with all but one state experiencing gains over this time frame. As a result, the gap in dental care utilization between Medicaid- and privately-insured children has been shrinking steadily. In fact, it narrowed in every single state for which we have data between 2005 and 2013 (see figure below). There are two states – Hawaii and Texas – where there is actually a “reverse gap”: children enrolled in Medicaid are more likely to visit a dentist than children who have private dental benefits. Moreover, this progress has all been happening during a time when the number of children enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) has been rising steadily. In 2013, nearly four out of ten children in the U.S. were enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP compared to two out of ten in 2000.

Title of Figure: Gap in Dental Care Utilization Between Medicaid-Enrolled Children and Children with Private Dental Benefits, 2005 and 2013

Source: Vujicic M, Nasseh, K. Gap in dental care utilization between Medicaid and privately insured children narrows, remains large for adults. Health Policy Institute Research Brief. American Dental Association. December 2015. Available from:

Trends for Adults Are Much Different

In contrast, the trends for adults are very different. The gap in dental care use between Medicaid- and privately-insured adults is much wider than it is for children and has actually increased in several states in recent years. Adults – especially Millennials – are nearly three times more likely than children to report avoiding dental care they need because of cost. In fact, one out of four low-income adults report that they have avoided dental care they needed in the past year due to financial reasons.

Dental care presents affordability challenges to adults to a much greater degree than any other type of health care service. Emergency room visits for dental conditions in the U.S. are on the rise, a trend that is being driven entirely by young adults.  Even among adults with private dental benefits, dental care use is declining in most states and the number one reason adults with private dental benefits do not visit the dentist is cost.

The barriers to dental care that adults face are leading to some troubling physical, social, and emotional effects. New data show that more than one out of three low-income adults say they avoid smiling and 17 percent report difficulty doing usual activities because of the condition of their mouth and teeth. Nearly one out of four low-income adults and 14 percent of all adults report that their oral health issues have led them to reduce participation in social activities.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Looking forward, policymakers and the research community ought to focus on three things to address some of the key challenges facing the U.S. oral health care system.

First, there needs to be a continued and sustained focus on implementing evidence-based policies when it comes to access. The states with the largest gains in access to dental care among Medicaid children over the past decade are those that implemented comprehensive, multi-pronged reforms. For example, Connecticut, Texas, and Maryland reformed their Medicaid programs by focusing on provider and Medicaid beneficiary outreach, provider reimbursement increases,innovations in care delivery models, and streamlined administrative procedures and saw remarkable improvements. It is important to note that the improvements in access to dental care in these three states, as well as others, did not involve any major increase in the number of dental care providers. In fact, there is strong evidence that there is significant excess capacity in the dental care system today. Nationwide, one out of three dentists report they are “not busy enough and can see more patients” suggesting that policymakers ought to focus on interventions that leverage existing unused capacity.

Second, there need to be a rethink of how oral health is defined and measured. The current focus of many government agency data collection efforts, for example,is to measure the presence and severity of dental disease and the frequency and type of dental care services people use. There is very little emphasis, in contrast, on measuring the contribution of oral health to physical, social, and emotional well being. These are the ultimate outcomes of interest that any dental care delivery system ought to be designed around. The new measures of oral health status recently developed by HPI are a significant advancement in this area but are meant to be a starting point for others, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, to build on. A robust oral health status measurement system would also enable a shift toward outcomes-based delivery and reimbursement models, a critical future direction in health care in the United States.

Third, policy makers need to reconsider how dental care for adults is handled in state and federal policy. Within Medicaid, adult dental benefits are optional and most states provide only basic coverage. Under the Affordable Care Act, dental care for adults is not considered “essential” and thus, dental benefits coverage is not part of the individual mandate. Implementing a comprehensive dental benefit for Medicaid adults in the 22 states that currently lack one is estimated to cost $1.6 to $1.8billion per year. The estimated state portion of this bill translates to about 1 percent of total Medicaid spending. Compare this to the $1.6 billion spent each year on hospital emergency room visits for dental conditions, one third of which is paid for by Medicaid. Newly published research from the NBER suggests that the dental care system has the capacity to absorb the spike in demand for dental care arising from large-scale expansions of dental benefits to Medicaid adults. There are also numerous state experiences to draw on that serve as good practices in managing adult dental benefits in Medicaid. Beyond Medicaid, insurers are approaching dental benefits for children and adults differently within the health insurance marketplaces. While more and more private medical insurance plans in the health insurance marketplaces are covering dental benefits for children, there are far fewer options for adults. This is despite the fact that dental care is a high priority among adults, especially young adults,who are shopping for health insurance.

As a former U.S. Surgeon General said, “you can’t be healthy without good oral health.” There is emerging evidence that oral health is related to conditions outside of the mouth, like diabetes, pregnancy, and even mental health. Health care policy in the United States clearly emphasizes the importance of oral health for children. It might be time to reconnect mouth and body for adults.

Marko Vujicic is Managing Vice President, Health Policy Resources Center at the American Dental Association where he is responsible for overseeing all of the Association’s policy research activities. Prior to joining the American Dental Association, he was Senior Economist with The World Bank in Washington D.C. where he directed the global health workforce policy program. He was also Labor Economist at the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland.

By BRIAN KLEPPER

The Congressional committee that recently demanded Martin Shkreli’s appearance must have hoped to spotlight a smug jerk responsible for the outrageous prescription drug pricing that we’re all up against. Of course there are lots of Shkrelis running drug companies, but most are shrewder and less brash, and might not make for such good theater.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), one of the Committee’s questioners, seemed to think that his witness could move healthcare forward by disclosing the machinery of the drug sector’s excesses. “The way I see it, you could go down in history as the poster boy for greedy drug company executives or you could change the system. Yeah, you.”

Excessive treatment and cost are at the core of the entire U.S. healthcare crisis. The fact that other societies and a few innovative firms here consistently deliver equal or better quality care at dramatically lower cost betrays the idea that conventional U.S. healthcare is necessarily superior or even appropriate.

Every part of healthcare is guilty, but the pharmaceutical sector is a case in point. An open record of lobbying spending and what pharma has obtained from Congress makes clear that its contributions have worked to that sector’s economic advantage and against the interests of American patients and purchasers.

Open Secrets data show that, between 1997-2015, Congress accepted $3.3 billion in campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical/health products sector, 43% more than they received from insurance, the second most politically influential industry. That averages out to about $181 million annually over that 18-year period, or a stunning $411,000 per legislator per year.

These numbers are chump change compared to the drug market. At $985 per person in 2011, the U.S. has the world’s highest drug spend by far, more than double what other developed countries pay on average ($483) for approximately the same benefit. In 2015, the U.S. had aggregate prescription drug sales of $374 billion. In other words, we spent about $190 billion more on drugs last year than other industrialized countries would have for the same population. And this figure is deceptively low, since 20-30% of Americans remain uninsured or underinsured, and can’t afford drugs and other treatments.

This excessive drug spending was stoked by a lobbying investment totaling only $235 million in 2015, or just 0.06% of that year’s total prescription drug spend. Evidently, when an industry sector works at scale, policy can be influenced incredibly cheaply.

 But policies forged in the special interest yield shamelessly conflicted mechanisms. For example, once a drug is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the drug’s manufacturer can set virtually any price it wishes without a rationale tied to the cost of development, the drug’s value to patients, or what is paid in other countries for the same drug. How does that play out? Consider Gilead’s cure for Hepatitis-C treatment, Sovaldi. At $1,000 per pill, the cost has wreaked havoc on health plan budgets and dramatically curtailed patient access to the drug. Meanwhile, the same drug is available for $11 per pill in Egypt and $4 in India.

A related head scratcher is Congress’ prohibition against Medicare negotiating drug prices. The government must pay whatever price is demanded on behalf of millions of subsidized patients using that drug. From the vendor’s perspective, it’s hard to imagine a better deal than having the purchaser let you set any price and then unreservedly guarantee that the bill will be paid.

Drug policy has become emblematic not only of the larger healthcare cost problem, but of a deeply dysfunctional Congressional practice that threatens patients’ interests and our nation’s long-term economic stability. Candidates Clinton, Sanders and Trump have vowed to address Medicare’s prohibition on drug pricing negotiation. Anticipating a challenge to the status quo, pharma has already launched a well-funded campaign that targets 7,000 policy influencers. The worry is that, unless something changes, we already know whose side Congress is on.

The Shkrelis.

Brian Klepper is a health care analyst and a Principal in Health Value Direct.

By BRIAN KLEPPER

The Congressional committee that recently demanded Martin Shkreli’s appearance must have hoped to spotlight a smug jerk responsible for the outrageous prescription drug pricing that we’re all up against. Of course there are lots of Shkrelis running drug companies, but most are shrewder and less brash, and might not make for such good theater.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), one of the Committee’s questioners, seemed to think that his witness could move healthcare forward by disclosing the machinery of the drug sector’s excesses. “The way I see it, you could go down in history as the poster boy for greedy drug company executives or you could change the system. Yeah, you.”

Excessive treatment and cost are at the core of the entire U.S. healthcare crisis. The fact that other societies and a few innovative firms here consistently deliver equal or better quality care at dramatically lower cost betrays the idea that conventional U.S. healthcare is necessarily superior or even appropriate.

Every part of healthcare is guilty, but the pharmaceutical sector is a case in point. An open record of lobbying spending and what pharma has obtained from Congress makes clear that its contributions have worked to that sector’s economic advantage and against the interests of American patients and purchasers.

Open Secrets data show that, between 1997-2015, Congress accepted $3.3 billion in campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical/health products sector, 43% more than they received from insurance, the second most politically influential industry. That averages out to about $181 million annually over that 18-year period, or a stunning $411,000 per legislator per year.

These numbers are chump change compared to the drug market. At $985 per person in 2011, the U.S. has the world’s highest drug spend by far, more than double what other developed countries pay on average ($483) for approximately the same benefit. In 2015, the U.S. had aggregate prescription drug sales of $374 billion. In other words, we spent about $190 billion more on drugs last year than other industrialized countries would have for the same population. And this figure is deceptively low, since 20-30% of Americans remain uninsured or underinsured, and can’t afford drugs and other treatments.

This excessive drug spending was stoked by a lobbying investment totaling only $235 million in 2015, or just 0.06% of that year’s total prescription drug spend. Evidently, when an industry sector works at scale, policy can be influenced incredibly cheaply.

 But policies forged in the special interest yield shamelessly conflicted mechanisms. For example, once a drug is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the drug’s manufacturer can set virtually any price it wishes without a rationale tied to the cost of development, the drug’s value to patients, or what is paid in other countries for the same drug. How does that play out? Consider Gilead’s cure for Hepatitis-C treatment, Sovaldi. At $1,000 per pill, the cost has wreaked havoc on health plan budgets and dramatically curtailed patient access to the drug. Meanwhile, the same drug is available for $11 per pill in Egypt and $4 in India.

A related head scratcher is Congress’ prohibition against Medicare negotiating drug prices. The government must pay whatever price is demanded on behalf of millions of subsidized patients using that drug. From the vendor’s perspective, it’s hard to imagine a better deal than having the purchaser let you set any price and then unreservedly guarantee that the bill will be paid.

Drug policy has become emblematic not only of the larger healthcare cost problem, but of a deeply dysfunctional Congressional practice that threatens patients’ interests and our nation’s long-term economic stability. Candidates Clinton, Sanders and Trump have vowed to address Medicare’s prohibition on drug pricing negotiation. Anticipating a challenge to the status quo, pharma has already launched a well-funded campaign that targets 7,000 policy influencers. The worry is that, unless something changes, we already know whose side Congress is on.

The Shkrelis.

Brian Klepper is a health care analyst and a Principal in Health Value Direct.