Recession Proof Pills: An Examination of the Relationship Between Recession Economics and Pharmaceutical Expenditures

The first decade of the 21st century proved to be a time of turbulence and volatility in the worldwide economy. Oddly enough, even as Americans’ disposable income decreased, spending on health care steadily increased. Americans spent $249.9 billion on prescription drugs in 2009, contrasted against$120.9 billion in 2000—a 105% increase.1 We may question the overall ramifications of such increases in pharmaceutical sales and the correlation to other economic factors. That is, how was the pharmaceutical sector able to boast gains when the housing market collapsed? One answer is that people place a priority on their health, even with limited resources. A report sanctioned by the World Health Organization illustrates the problem when it states that, “It is hard to gauge the implications of the recession on people\u27s health”.2 In this paper, I examine pharmaceutical sales figures to develop a better understanding of how the Great Recession (2009) affected health care and pharmaceutical expenditures in the United States. A January 2011 Health Affairs article argues that, “In 2009, despite the economic downturn, the number of prescription drugs dispensed rebounded to prerecession rates of growth”.3 While the recession stifled the overall rate of spending on prescription drugs, Americans allocated a greater amount of GDP to pharmaceuticals—$249.9 billion in 2009 contrasted against$237.2 billion in 2008.4 The pharmaceutical industry, then, really dispenses recession-proof pills. Understanding the complexities of recession economics will ultimately illustrate the need for restructuring how pharmaceutical companies produce and government agencies regulate prescription drugs in the United States

Challenges and complexities in application of LCA approaches in the case of ICT for a sustainable future

In this work, three of many ICT-specific challenges of LCA are discussed. First, the inconsistency versus uncertainty is reviewed with regard to the meta-technological nature of ICT. As an example, the semiconductor technologies are used to highlight the complexities especially with respect to energy and water consumption. The need for specific representations and metric to separately assess products and technologies is discussed. It is highlighted that applying product-oriented approaches would result in abandoning or disfavoring of new technologies that could otherwise help toward a better world. Second, several believed-untouchable hot spots are highlighted to emphasize on their importance and footprint. The list includes, but not limited to, i) User Computer-Interfaces (UCIs), especially screens and displays, ii) Network-Computer Interlaces (NCIs), such as electronic and optical ports, and iii) electricity power interfaces. In addition, considering cross-regional social and economic impacts, and also taking into account the marketing nature of the need for many ICT's product and services in both forms of hardware and software, the complexity of End of Life (EoL) stage of ICT products, technologies, and services is explored. Finally, the impact of smart management and intelligence, and in general software, in ICT solutions and products is highlighted. In particular, it is observed that, even using the same technology, the significance of software could be highly variable depending on the level of intelligence and awareness deployed. With examples from an interconnected network of data centers managed using Dynamic Voltage and Frequency Scaling (DVFS) technology and smart cooling systems, it is shown that the unadjusted assessments could be highly uncertain, and even inconsistent, in calculating the management component's significance on the ICT impacts.Comment: 10 pages. Preprint/Accepted of a paper submitted to the ICT4S Conferenc

Supporting sustainable e‐learning

This paper draws upon work carried out within phase one of a national forum for support staff, funded by the UK Learning and Teaching Support Network Generic Centre. It sets out themes in current Learning Technology research within the context of institutional practice. It reports the responses of a range of e‐learning support staff to new developments in the reuse and sharing of Learning Objects. The article highlights tensions across support units, inconsistencies in support provision and confusion over issues concerning different modes of teaching. It also forewarns a growing gap between institutional practice and research in the development of approaches to sustainable e‐learning