Study of Retired NFL Players Finds Evidence of Brain Damage

HealthDay – Fri, Jun 29, 2012 FRIDAY, June 29 (HealthDay News) -- Tests performed on a group of retired NFL players revealed that more than 40 percent suffered from problems such as depression and dementia, adding to a growing pile of evidence that repeated sports-related head traumas can lead to lasting neurological issues.

Analyzing 34 ex-professional football players (average age 62) on benchmarks such as memory, reasoning, problem-solving and behavior, researchers from the Center for Brain Health at the University of Texas at Dallas found that 20 tested normal while the rest suffered from depression, various deficits in memory/thinking or a combination of these issues. Twenty-six of the players also underwent MRI scans.

"We picked up that many guys were depressed but didn't know it," added study author Dr. John Hart, medical science director at the center. "The cognitive impairments . . . were more than what's expected for their ages. A lot had damage to their brain's white matter, so for us it's a real clue or marker to look for."

Hart is scheduled to present the findings Friday at the National Athletic Trainers' Association (NATA) annual meeting in St. Louis. Research presented at scientific meetings should be considered preliminary until it is published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.

An estimated 300,000 sports-related concussions occur in the United States each year, and mounting attention is being paid to the neurological toll of those injuries on former professional athletes. In June, a massive bundle of lawsuits representing more than 2,100 National Football League players was filed against the league, claiming that the NFL hid information linking football-related head injuries to permanent brain damage.

Hart's study involved ex-NFL athletes hailing from the North Texas region. For comparison purposes, the researchers also looked at the brains of 26 people with no signs of mental deficits, selected from the general population and matched for age, education and IQ.

Of the eight former players who were found to have depression -- the finding that most surprised Hart -- most didn't exhibit the mood issues such as sadness that are typically associated with the condition, he said.

Instead, "there was a lack of energy, initiative or sex drive and disrupted sleep, with weight gain or loss," Hart said. "They would ruminate or get anxious about stuff, but they weren't crying. They were shocked or surprised

View the Original article

Retired couples may need $240,000 for health care

Couples retiring this year can expect their medical bills throughout retirement to cost 4 percent more than those who retired a year ago, according to an annual projection released Wednesday by Fidelity Investments.

The estimated $240,000 that a newly retired couple will need to cover health care expenses reflects the typical pattern of projected annual increases. The Boston-based company cut the estimate for the first time last year, citing President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. Medicare changes resulting from that plan are expected to gradually reduce many seniors' out-of-pocket expenses for prescription drugs.

But Fidelity says overall health care cost trends are on the rise again, so it's raising its cost estimate from last year's $230,000 figure.

"As long as health care cost trends exceed personal income growth and economic growth, health care will still be a growing burden for the country as a whole and for individuals," says Sunit Patel, a senior vice president for benefits consulting at Fidelity, and an actuary who helped calculate the estimate.

However, this year's 4 percent rise is relatively modest. Annual increases have averaged 6 percent since Fidelity made its initial $160,000 calculation in 2002.

The projections are part of Fidelity's benefits consulting business. The study is based on projections for a 65-year-old couple retiring this year with Medicare coverage. The estimate factors in the federal program's premiums, co-payments and deductibles, as well as out-of-pocket prescription costs. The study assumes the couple does not have insurance from their former employers, and a life expectancy of 85 for women and 82 for men. The estimate doesn't factor in most dental services, or long-term care, such as the cost of living in a nursing home.

This year's estimate could change significantly. Next month, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether to strike down part or all of the 2010 health care law, including its centerpiece requirement that nearly all Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty.

If the ruling requires significant changes, Fidelity may update its estimate, Patel said.

Although its focus is expanding health care access to people under age 65, the law also is intended to benefit many retirees by gradually closing what's known as the 'doughnut hole' coverage gap in the Medicare drug benefit.

But longer-term, retirees' cost savings aren't expected to offset other factors driving expenses up, such as new medical technologies, greater use of health care services, and more diagnostic tests.

Fidelity's finding of a 4 percent increase in long-term medical costs for retirees is in line with recent data from the Employee Benefit Research Institute, said Paul Fronstin, director of health research and education for the private nonprofit organization.

"Costs are going up," Fronstin says.

EBRI conducts similar research but, unlike Fidelity, doesn't focus on an average. That's because there are so many variables that impact a retiree's circumstances, including life expectancy and prescription drug costs, Fronstin said.

In its latest annual estimate released last August, EBRI projected that a couple with median drug expenses

View the Original article