Pharma Blog Online

Pensions agency reports deficit of $18.1 billion

Smaller shortfall aided by special treatment for airlines

WASHINGTON - The federal agency that insures private pension plans for millions of Americans logged a deficit of $18.1 billion this year, a big improvement from last year as a new law helped to put the agency on better financial footing.

The narrower deficit for the 2006 fiscal year reported by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. Wednesday was down from a shortfall of $22.8 billion recorded in 2005 and a record $23.3 billion posted in 2004.

“The PBGC’s financial condition appears to have stabilized for the time being,” said Vince Snowbarger, interim director of the agency, which insures pensions for 44 million workers and retirees.

The agency disclosed in its annual financial report that as of Sept. 30 it had assets of $60 billion to cover liabilities of $78.1 billion.

PBGC mainly attributed the shrinking deficit to a provision in the new pension law that carves out special treatment for the airline industry, giving airlines that are in bankruptcy court and have frozen their pension plans extra time for their pension plans to become financially whole.

The agency said this led to a sharp reduction in the amount of probable liabilities reflected on the agency’s balance sheet.

Still, the report comes as Americans are feeling anxious about their retirement security. In recent years, an explosion of ailing companies have jettisoned their pension liabilities to the PBGC. The problem has been especially pronounced in industries such as steel and the airlines, which are heavily unionized.

Organized labor wants the new Democrat-controlled Congress, which will convene in January, to provide for more pension protections, including for defined benefit plans, which are increasingly being replaced by 401(k) plans.

The PBGC was created in 1974 as a government insurance program for traditional, defined benefit pension plans. Those plans give retirees a fixed monthly amount based on salary and years of employment. Companies that sponsor these traditional pension plans pay insurance premiums to the agency. If a company can’t support its pension obligations, the agency takes over the plan and pays promised benefits up to certain limits.

The maximum annual benefit for plans taken over in 2006 is $47,659 for workers who wait until 65 to retire. Workers who retire before 65 get smaller benefits.

Addressing the PBGC’s overall red ink this year, Greg McBride, senior financial analyst at Bankrate.com, said: “From the individual worker’s standpoint, you are still looking at a big deficit. The message here is even if you have a pension, you still need to save on your own because the health of that pension when you go to retire could be tenuous. So it is important to take advantage of tax-favored retirement savings options such as a 401(k) and an IRA.”

Traditional pension plans are still underfunded but not by as much as in the past, the agency said. These pensions now are underfunded by $350 billion, compared with $450 billion last year. Higher interest rates, a better performing stock market, improved credit ratings and better plan funding by some companies were among the factors that helped to narrow this underfunding gap, economists said.

The agency said it was responsible for the pension benefits of 1.3 million workers and retirees this year, reflecting no net change from last year. The amount of benefits paid increased to $4.1 billion this year from $3.7 billion last year. The amount is projected to rise to $4.8 billion next year.

President Bush in August signed a bill to shore up funding for traditional pensions. Supporters hope the changes will help prevent a multibillion-dollar taxpayer bailout of the PBGC.

In addition to insurance premiums paid by companies, PBGC’s operations are financed by money it earns from investments and funds from pension plans it takes over. The agency is not financed through tax revenues.

Copyright 2006 . .

Can We Slow Aging?

A compound found in red wine may extend the human life span. A report from the front lines.
Photo Illustration by Nitin Vadukul for Newsweek
Resveratrol: Does it protect from aging?

By By David Sinclair, Ph.D. and Anthony L. Komaroff, M.D.Newsweek

Dec. 11, 2006 issue - Nothing seems more inevitable than aging and death??”not even taxes. Every plant, animal and person you have ever seen will eventually die, including the person in the mirror. But some recent research suggests that aging as we know it may not be inevitable. Indeed, as our understanding of it grows, aging can be seen not as an immutable reality from which there is no escape, but as the product of biological processes that we may be able to control someday.

We already know that some animals do not seem to age. Many cold-water ocean fish, some amphibians and the American lobster never reach a fixed size; they continue to grow bigger, to be able to reproduce and to live until something kills them. What these creatures seem to be telling us is that something in their genes??”and possibly in ours??”controls the pace of aging, and that aging is not the fate of every living thing.

Throughout the history of life on earth, one of the most common difficulties that animals (and their cells) have faced has been a lack of food. About 70 years ago, scientists discovered that when animals are forced to live on 30 to 40 percent fewer calories than they would normally eat, something unusual happens: they become resistant to most age-related diseases??”cancer, heart disease, diabetes , Alzheimer’s??”and live 30 to 50 percent longer. Restricting calories slows aging.

But how? What are the underlying genes that preserve vitality and stave off disease? No one knows for sure why aging occurs, but one important reason is probably the accumulation of DNA damage??”from radiation, mutation-causing chemicals or, particularly, oxidants. Inside every animal cell are many mitochondria??”little “power packs” that use oxygen to generate energy. In doing their jobs, however, mitochondria produce chemical byproducts??”oxidants ??”that damage DNA and other components inside cells. It may not seem fair, but it’s a fact of life. Fortunately, our cells are not defenseless against such assaults. They have genes that spring into action to defend against DNA damage, including genes that repair damaged mitochondria.

About 15 years ago, armed with powerful new molecular-research techniques, a few scientists began to investigate these genetic phenomena. At MIT, Dr. Leonard Guarente (along with one of the authors of this piece, David Sinclair) discovered that adding an extra copy of a gene called Sir2 caused yeast cells to live 30 percent longer. Today many researchers suspect that Sir2 or other sirtuin genes??”which are present in all animals, including humans??”are responsible for the health benefits of calorie restriction, perhaps by repairing our DNA. But if, in order to kick the sirtuins into action, we had to restrict our calorie intake by 30 to 40 percent, would it be of any practical use? Few of us would be capable of restricting our diets so severely that we were constantly hungry: whether or not it made life longer, it would surely make life feel longer.

nwurl = (window.location.href.split(”id/”)[1]);nwid = nwurl.substring(0,8);urlbegin = ‘http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/’;urlend = ‘/site/newsweek/’;wburl = urlbegin+nwid+urlend;//document.writeln(wburl);document.writeln(”"); document.writeln(”");

CONTINUED1 | 2 | 3 | Next >

In control: Readers share treatment decisions

Robots, radiation or waiting? Prostate cancer patients share their stories

In the shadowy landscape of cancer, one area where patients can have control is deciding on their own treatment.

“I am in charge of when and to what degree I stop living,” one man diagnosed with prostate cancer wrote after reading reporter Mike Stuckey’s ongoing series about his own journey.

Another man explained he felt like a wimp for being anxious about his upcoming surgery when there are soldiers fighting in Iraq. “It’s like waiting for the rest of your life to start … perhaps a bit like waiting for a battle sure to come.”

Other readers wrote in about their battles to find a new normal, and of their fears that the treatment wouldn’t be worth it in the end. “Will I win? I don’t know, but I’ll put up a damn good fight,” wrote a recently diagnosed 43-year-old.

Read on for more responses:

Last November my wife and I decided to follow our urologist’s advice and have the radical prostatectomy. One reason: My brother had the seeds implanted eight years ago and his prostate cancer returned. He’s now on hormone treatments and who knows about his future? Will he, on average, live past the three years stated for hormone treatment? I now have a 0.0 PSA and am no longer worried about survival. The side effects are another issue. Leakage still a minor issue. Sex is a challenge. Sildenafil pills didn’t work, nor did injections. A “vacuum therapy system” using a pump and rings work fairly well and my wife and I are both fairly satisfied. Bottom line: What’s your life worth?
??”Jim, Brevard, N.C.

My husband was diagnosed with prostate cancer last year. He was 43 years old. Pardon the cliche, but it is truly an emotional roller coaster. My husband said his biggest concern was incontinence. Then impotence. I wanted him with me to see our grandchildren. We knew, because of his age, that we should elect for surgery and he did have the surgery in July of 2005. He had a laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. His surgeon was excellent and compassionate.

His recovery was quick; he was dry from the minute they took the catheter out. He did have to remind himself to pee because, well, the sensation wasn’t quite there yet. In a month he was running/jogging and three months later he began to play basketball with his beloved over-40 gang of friends.

Sex? How can a Catholic school girl put this delicately? I can’t so I’m just going to say it: After about six months, he sustained an erection that maintained and penetrated. Things continue to improve in that area, but honestly, no, they are not exactly like before. But then again neither am I. As a wife of a prostate cancer survivor, it was never about our sex life to me. I married my husband because he made me laugh and made me feel safe. He continues to do so. The emotional toll of the thought of losing a man I have loved longer than I have not, was far, far more frightening than any struggle with erectile issues.

Click for related contentNo room for Mr. Big Man in the recovery roomReaders share their fears about sex

Some things remain difficult, and sometimes you just have to laugh. I still pray like a nun before each PSA. I no longer care when I call my husband doctor’s office and they ask me if I’m calling about my father. Life deals one many deeper and injurious insults. We dodged a bullet, and he’s here with me. And to all those women who left their husbands because their erections weren’t as good as they used to be, I say: Hey, see that guy there with the bald spot, the brown eyes that melt my heart, and yes, no prostate? He’s with me.
??”Jane, Hopedale, Mass.

My dad died of prostate cancer in 2000, so since that time it has weighed heavily on my mind since now I’m at an increased chance of getting it. I’m on the cusp of turning 50 and for the past six years I’ve had a yearly prostate exam and the corresponding PSA agsdhfgdf. So far, so good, but I think about prostate cancer ??” and my dad ??” often. It didn’t help matters that my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2003, but is doing fine as I write this. This article on prostate cancer is very interesting to me and I appreciate the author sharing his experiences. It sure makes me think what I would do under similar circumstances. I wish him a complete recovery.
??”Anonymous

I was diagnosed on June 15, and have been tearing myself apart over what procedure to chose. Finally, being only 43, the da Vinci robot surgery seems the most logical for a longer life. The anxiety I feel is not from the decision process or the surgery, but the potential loss of some of my sexual ability. I feel like a wimp for feeling such anxiety ??” I mean look at those guys in Iraq ??” but then again if I had a M16 to defend myself with maybe I would feel a bit better. Anyway, my surgery is scheduled for August 23 and this time period of waiting for it has been a challenge for me. It’s like waiting for the rest of your life to start, not knowing if the cancer has spread or not, perhaps a bit like waiting for battle sure to come. Will I win? I don’t know, but I’ll put up a damn good fight!
??”David, Calera, Ala.

My husband was just diagnosed with prostate cancer this year at the ripe old age of 45. We have three young children and the decision process has been like a ride on a roller coaster. Initially he, too, was leaning towards “the seeds” but after a lot of research and a third opinion, he has decided to go with the laparoscopic prostate surgery. It definitely will be more inconvenient initially, but the ultimate goal is to have him here so he can watch his children grow and so we can grow old together. Good luck to you, Mike, and to all the other men out there who are going to the same emotional amusement park known as prostate cancer.
??”Donna, N.Y.

CONTINUED: My old pal ‘woody’1 | 2 | Next >

Name
a@a.ru