Author: SeniorWomenWeb

  • Why Millions Won’t Get Help From Big Mortgage Settlement

    by Cora CurrierProPublica

    The Obama administration is billing today’s $25 billion agreement between most states and five banks that engaged in flawed or deceptive practices as a big win for struggling homeowners.Mortgages for Sale

    Most of the money in the settlement isn’t a penalty, or a fine levied on the banks. Instead, the biggest slice of the settlement will be money banks put toward principal reduction — reducing the amount owed by struggling or underwater borrowers. (Banks will also put smaller amounts toward refinancing and other ways of helping people get back in control of spiraling debt.)

    Getting a break on their mortgages could help the millions of homeowners who owe more on their home than it is worth. But many of them won’t qualify — thanks to government-owned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    The two mortgage companies, who were bailed out by the government in 2008,  “the boulder” in the way of principal reduction, as former Obama economic advisor Jared Bernstein put it. Their federal regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, is tasked with maximizing profits from the companies — and thus minimizing taxpayer losses. The head of the agency, Edward DeMarco, argues that allowing principal reductions would result in a big loss for Fannie and Freddie and ultimately taxpayers.

    The two companies aren’t directly part of the settlement. They don’t service mortgages, or deal directly with borrowers. But Fannie and Freddie do guarantee or own roughly half of the mortgages in the U.S. They also hold more than 3 million of the nation’s nearly 11 million underwater mortgages. Since Fannie and Freddie are backing the loans — and are the ones who will take a loss if the mortgage isn’t paid back in full — they often have a veto on whether homeowners get a break.

    Principal reduction is being pushed heavily by the Obama administration as a way to lower the rate of foreclosures. The administration recently tried to encourage Fannie and Freddie by offering to triple incentives for principal reduction. So far, the companies and their federal overseer, DeMarco, have declined to do so. An FHFA spokesperson said that the agency is “not a party to the agreement. We await a copy of the agreement to determine its implications.”

    Lowering the amount of money owed on a loan would result in at least short-term losses for Fannie and Freddie, as well as to any other investors in mortgages that are reduced. But many economists and analysts argue that Fannie and Freddie would ultimately benefit since such moves could help restore the health of the housing market as a whole.

    The reluctance by Fannie, Freddie and others to take on principal reduction is partly why the administration’s mortgage modification programs have been so ineffective.

    The settlement does have potential benefits for future borrowers, including new protections and disclosures to prevent what Attorney General Eric Holder called “abusive practices” by the mortgage industry.

    A small portion of the overall settlement — about $5 billion — will amount to penalties for past abuses by the banks. Some of it will go to state governments that were afflicted by banks’ shoddy practices, and some of it will go directly to about 750,000 homeowners who were foreclosed upon. If you lost your home, you could get up to $2,000.

    Photograph: Wikimedia Commons

  • Clues From a Marriage

    by Joan L. Cannon

    I don’t cook very much anymore, though once I truly enjoyed any special occasion, and mostly was happy to prepare our daily meals. I confess to a time when I used to be up at 5:30 a.m. and didn’t get home till after 6:00 when I wished we were rich and I could have a meal ready to eat for which I had done nothing. But that was only a few years, and then I could face supper again without a groan.Joan's cupboard

    The other day, I got a yen for something I used to make two or three times a year that always signified some kind of special observance:  chicken liver pâté. I took myself off to the nearest grocery store and discovered the only chicken livers were frozen in one-pound containers. That’s a lot of  pâté, unless you’re planning a really big party. After all, it’s only for canapés or a bit of hors d’oeuvre. But that isn’t what I was going to write about.

    There’s nothing complicated about making this treat if you have a food processor, and I do. It’s over 25 years old, and works perfectly. You don’t need a lot of pots or particularly unusual ingredients. So I was puttering contentedly, simmering the thawed livers, but having to keep watch so they didn’t boil over in a covered pan, and I began idly observing my more than fifty-year-old collection of cooking utensils, and I realized I was observing a kind of archeological record.

    Our first apartment kitchen wasn’t big, but had room for a table and two chairs. I put together a traditional Thanksgiving dinner including home made pie using some of the things still in my cupboards that had come from my mother-in-law’s kitchen. Especially a three-tined fork with a wooden handle, and a bowl we still use for cranberry sauce, and another in which I steam plum pudding — or I did when we still had Christmas dinner at our house.

    I looked behind those bowls, and there was one of two casseroles I needed for the big (30 or so) dinners I prepared for my husband’s company’s foreign representatives for annual sales meetings. There was the rimmed cookie sheet and the enameled steel lasagna pan that saw us through more than thirty years of informal dinners with our friends. Up on the top of the cabinets in the laundry stand two lobster steamers. I still have my mother’s favorite mixing bowls.home made pate

    The year we moved to England, we needed to buy cooking implements because our children were going to live in our house. And so we bought a new set of pots. They’re the most-used foundation of anything I fix that requires cooking. Stainless steel with heavy layered bottoms, they’re easy to clean, handsome to look at, and completely reliable, now that I’ve learned how to regulate the heat for their super conductivity.

    Photographs: Joan’s kitchen cabinet; photo of home made pate (not Joan’s)

  • A Decorated Woman Fighter Pilot Competes to Fill Gabby Giffords Seat

    Martha McSally has announced her candidacy for Arizona’s 8th Congressional District, one that has been held by Rep. (D) Gabrielle Giffords until her recent resignation.

    The late writer David Westheimer first introduced us to Colonel Martha McSally in 2002 with the article, Women in Blue, followed by Women in Blue: Round II and finally, More Martha.  She also earned a mention in another popular SeniorWomen.com article,  Killer Chick, about Captain Kim Campbell, another fighter pilot, with 120 combat hours in the A-10 Thunderbolt II.

    In 1988, McSally attended the United States Air Force Academy and went on to  complete a Master’s degree in Public Policy from Harvard’s JFK School of Government.  She earned her wings at Laughlin Air Force Base in Texas and was assigned to an operational A-10 squadron, deploying to Kuwait in January 1995.Martha McSally with an A-10 Thunderbolt II

    In July 2004, she took command of the A-10 equipped 354th Fighter Squadron, and was subsequently assigned to Afghanistan under Operation Enduring Freedom where she employed weapons in combat for the first time. In 2005, McSally and her squadron were awarded the David C. Shilling Award, given by the Air Force Association for the best aerospace contribution to national defense.

    Originally from Rhode Island, Martha retired from the United States Air Force as a colonel in 2010. She has made her home in Tucson for a number of years, first arriving in the Old Pueblo in 1994, the first of her four assignments to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base.

    Before resigning to run for office, Martha was Professor of National Security Studies at the George C. Marshall Center in Germany where she taught and mentored senior government officials from all over the world in international and national security issues.

    An Air Force officer who worked for Colonel McSally offers an opinion of his former boss:

    “McSally became an inspiration because she demonstrated that doing what she thought was right still came first.  She told us how she agonized over her decision to sue the DoD; it took a lot of courage on her part to put her fast-tracked career on the line to oppose the establishment that she was very much a part of.  How sweet that vindication must have felt when she not only won, she later was promoted to Colonel.  I observed the way  the Generals respected her opinion — because they knew she would tell them the truth (supported factually) rather than worry about trying to impress them only to further her career.  I’m sure  she’ll infuse that same integrity into a role in Congress.”

    Martha McSally wants to bring her extensive track record of leadership, moral courage and public service to the people of Southern Arizona. “It’s time we stopped talking and starting making our government work again,” said McSally, “When I see something messed up, I fix it. And right now, we have a lot of work to do.”

  • 7 Ways to Survive While Julia Child’s Kitchen is Closed for 7 Months

    Editor’s Note: This post was originally published on the National Museum of American History’s “O Say Can You See?” blog and is republished here with permission.

    On December 3, 2011 the [Smithsonian] museum announced the temporary closing of Bon Appetit! Julia Child’s Kitchen at the Smithsonian. The last day to see this popular exhibition, which featured the 14-by-20-foot kitchen from the legendary cook’s Cambridge, Massachusetts home, was on January 8, 2012.

    Julia Child's exhibition kitchen

    The exhibition showing Julia Child’s kitchen

    The next day, museum staff and volunteers began packing all of the tools, utensils, appliances, and gadgets that have been on display in the kitchen since Bon Appetit! opened in 2002. Everything was carefully stored while a new and larger gallery space is prepared. In late summer, the kitchen will go back on view, with all of its parts and pieces exactly as Julia had arranged them before she donated the kitchen to the Smithsonian in 2001.

    Over the course of the next several months, watch this space [the blog noted above] for news about the new exhibition. In the meantime, the museum team offers suggestions on how to cope for a few months sans Julia Child’s kitchen.

    1. Visit the two NMAH websites about Julia Child: Bon Appétit! Julia Child’s Kitchen, where you can virtually explore the kitchen, its history, and many of Julia’s kitchen tools; and What’s Cooking?, which features curators’ stories of collecting the kitchen.

    2. Remind yourself of Julia’s masterful cookbooks. Our favorites:Mastering the Art of French Cooking Volumes One and Two; The French ChefFrom Julia Child’s KitchenKitchen WisdomThe Way to CookBaking with Julia; and Julia and Jacques Cooking at Home. Pick a recipe and cook it for someone or, better yet, invite someone to cook with you!

    3. Make French bread (Mastering, Vol. Two). While you’re waiting for the dough to rise, watch reruns of Julia’s cooking shows on Public TV or get the DVDs of her early French Chef series.

    4. Immerse yourself in Julia’s biography by reading about her life: Appetite for Life, by Noel Riley Fitch; Julia Child, A Life, by Laura Shapiro; My Life in France by Julia Child with Alex Prud’homme; *As Always, Julia: The Letters of Julia Child & Avis DeVoto, edited by Joan Reardon.

  • The Look of Love: Eye Miniatures Jewelry in Birmingham

    The Birmingham Museum of Art debuts The Look of Love: Eye Miniatures from the Skier Collection, the first major exhibition of lover’s eye jewelry, on display to June 10, 2012.iage from the look of love exhibit

    Exquisite in craftsmanship, unique in detail, and few in number,  lover’s eye miniatures are small-scale portraits of individual eyes set into various forms of jewelry from late 18th- and early 19th century England. Featuring an impressive 98 pieces, the collection is considered to be the largest of its kind, with only 1,000 lover’s eye miniatures thought to be in existence worldwide. Part of a trend that began with Britain’s Prince of Wales (later George IV), clandestine lovers exchanged these customized tokens depicting one another’s eyes, as such a feature might only be recognized by persons of the most intimate familiarity. Thus, behind the skilled artistry with which each of these tiny portraits was painted, lie the enchanting stories of secret romance and love lost, which inspired the creation of this popular, albeit short-lived fashion.

    Graham C. Boettcher, The William C. Hulsey Curator of American Art at the Museum, organized The Look of Love with the participation of collectors, Dr. David and Mrs. Nan Skier of Birmingham. “We are delighted to present the largest ever exhibition of these intriguing and enigmatic objects, which are sure to delight the viewer with their beauty, intricacy, and mystery,” says Boettcher.

    A Secret Affair

    The genesis of lover’s eyes is a story of forbidden love. In 1784, the 21-year-old Prince of Wales became smitten with Mrs. Maria Fitzherbert, a Catholic widow. Under the Royal Marriage Act, the Prince could not marry without his father’s consent until the age of 25, and it was highly unlikely that King George III would agree to the heir to the throne marrying a Catholic widow. Mrs. Fitzherbert initially rebuffed the Prince’s advances, but after he staged a suicide attempt to demonstrate his despair, she gave in and accepted his proposal.Mrs. Fitzherbert

    The following day, she came to her senses and fled to the Continent, remaining there for more than a year. She hoped that her absence would quell the Prince’s feelings, but true to the old adage, it only made his heart grow fonder. On November 3, 1785, the Prince wrote to Mrs. Fitzherbert with a second proposal of marriage. Instead of sending an engagement ring, he sent her a picture of his own eye, painted by the miniaturist Richard Cosway, writing, “P.S. I send you a Parcel … and I send you at the same time an Eye, if you have not totally forgotten the whole countenance. I think the likeness will strike you.”

    Shortly thereafter, Mrs. Fitzherbert returned to England and married the Prince in a secret ceremony on December 15, 1785. Not long after their clandestine nuptials, Mrs. Fitzherbert (as she preferred to remain) commissioned Cosway to paint a miniature of her own eye for the Prince. The Prince of Wales’ token of affection inspired an aristocratic trend for exchanging eye portraits mounted in a wide variety of settings lasting the next few decades.

  • Online Dating: A ‘Mature’ Woman’s Search for Romance With Cyberspace as Cupid.

    by Doris O’Brien

    It all started as a sort of joke.  Several months after my husband’s death, my son  — who met his wife eight years ago an online dating service —  asked me if I intended to join an on-line dating service, and facetiously  suggested one called “burned out match.com.” It doesn’t exist, of course, though maybe it should.True Romance ocver

    I hadn’t thought seriously about going that route in search of romance.  After all, I’m pushing four score years, a long way from my days of blind-dating at an all-woman’s college.  Besides, I come from a generation that was warned, early on, not to talk to strangers, even if they’ve now morphed into virtual ones. To make matters worse, modern-day electronic media constitute unfamiliar territory for many of my age.

    More to the point, was I really interested in looking for  a companion on a computer screen?  And even if I missed having a man around, was it too soon after my spouse’s death? Was it too late for me altogether?  Would I be paying for the privilege of getting nothing but a painful reality check?

    Still, I’d seen TV advertisements of dating sites that do actually exist, showing happy senior couples enjoying meals out at a fine restaurant or strolling together along a sandy beach. Somehow it seemed like a reasonably harmless escape from the doldrums of widowhood.  And if I could approach it in the spirit of a diversion,  rationalized further  by the old  adage “nothing ventured, nothing gained”,  what would be the harm?

    It’s relatively easy to enter the world of cyber-dating. One doesn’t even have to pay fees, initially, to sample the service.   Most sites require only that you answer some brief questions e.g., how good-looking you think you are, or if you like to cook, or whether you tend to be punctual on a date.  Subscribers set their own parameters for possible “matches” based on age, interests, level of education, geographical distance, etc. Add a (recent) photo, press “send”  and wait for the tsunami of would-be dates to deluge your in-box.

    I’m still waiting.  Initially, I sampled three different sites, figuring it would be like pressing my lined face against a bakery window.  But something odd was happening. Instead of  guys around my age, I was being matched with those a lot younger than myself and a lot farther from where I lived.   Imagine my surprise, for example,  when I got a ‘wink’ from a 50-year old in Austin, Texas!

    The reason was obvious enough.  There aren’t that many men my age signing on for cyber-dating.  Men die earlier than women, of course, and those who don’t most likely have mates already.  If they are divorced or widowed, they’re not looking for a woman their age, anyway.

  • The Sunlight Foundation Shows Who Drove the Super Pac Contributions in 2011

    By Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group, Feb 01, 2012Federal Election Commission

    The deadline for presidential super PACs like Restore Our Future and Winning Our Future — supporting, respectively, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich — and other committees to file their disclosures with the Federal Election Commission fell at 11:59 p.m. Sunlight’s Reporting Group combed through the filings, looking to see who’s writing six- and seven-figure checks to the super PACs that are trying to influence voters in the Republican primaries — and beyond. We’re also providing a chart tracking super PACs playing in the presidential race where you can download .csv files of their latest FEC filings. If you do, be sure to check our our data notes here.

    Top Donors to Endorse Liberty include PayPal co-founders Peter Thiel and Luke Nosek. Thiel, a libertarian, is the founder of the Thiel Foundation. The Foundation seeks to “defend and promote freedom in all its dimensions: political, personal and economic,” according the website. James O’Neill, co-founder of the foundation also made a donation to the PAC.

    — Mike George is the founder of Strong America Now, a super PAC that supported Newt Gingrich, and the group’s sole funder. George is listed as a self-employed business man from Austin, Texas according to reports released yesterday through the Federal Election Commission and a Tea Party activist. George gave $101,000 to his group through December 31 of last year and spent that money mainly on robo-calls and mailers supporting Newt Gingrich and opposing Mitt Romney.

    — Texas businessman Harold Simmons, who had supported Texas presidential candidate Rick Perry, poured $5 million into American Crossroads’ super PAC during the last months of 2011; his company, Contran Corp., donated another $2 million. A privately held holding company, Contran has stakes in a long list of companies, and reported spending $320,000 on federal lobbying last year. One of these, Waste Control Specialists, a radioactive waste facility that got favorable treatment by Perry’s Texas  administration reported lobbying on waste treatment and the Endangered Species Act. Another company, Titanium corp., weighed in on tariffs. Simmons is a major donor to GOP candidates and parties >  and was a bundler for former presidential candidate John McCain.

    — Indiana-based Whiteco Industries, which operates real estate, construction, and other businesses, kicked in $1 million in November to American Crossroads. The company’s vice president, John Peterman (not to be confused with the John Peterman made famous on Seinfeld), also gave $100,000 to the group in 2010. He and his wife have also contributed more than $235,000 over the years, mostly to Republicans but with some notable exceptions: a $2,300 donation to Barack Obama in 2007. (His contributions to the McCain campaign were later refunded.)

    — Environmentally friendly cleaning products company Melaleuca and three subsidiaries collectively contributed $1 million to Romney.

    — Lots of money from financial firms and hedge funds going to Restore Our Future. Robert Mercer of Renaissance Technologies, gave $1 million. In 2010, he funded ads that attacked Rep. Peter DeFasio, D-Ore.

    — Eli Publishing and F8 LLC, two businesses that share an address in Provo, Utah, both gave $1 million to Restore Our Future. The donations have been linked to Steven J. Lund, a director of anti-aging cream company Nu Skin, who’s listed as the agent of one of those businesses in Utah records.

    — Another major donor to Restore Our Future is Tiger Management’s Julian Robertson who gave the PAC $1 million.

    — Megadonor Bob Perry, a big supporter of Texas Gov. Rick Perry, contributed $500,000 to Restore Our Future.

    — Spreading it around: Harold Simmons gave to both the pro-Gingrich Winning Our Future ($500,000) and the pro-Perry Make Us Great Again ($1 million).

  • Small Worlds: Artworks That Create an Intimate Spaces

    Ohio’s Toledo Museum of Art challenges us to look at the world from new perspectives through its Small Worlds exhibition on view through March 25, 2012.

    Five contemporary artists in the exhibition offer works that create an intimate space or environment or show scenes which are familiar but perhaps slightly askew. Intricate and intriguing, the drawings, relief paintings, photography and sculpture explore the realms of the home, the studio, the neighborhood, the city and the natural world, stated Amy Gilman, curator of contemporary art,  associate director of the Museum and organizer of the exhibition.

    The artists encourage the viewer to consider space and perspective in different ways, said Gilman. “We may feel oversized when peering at Gregory Euclide’s miniature ecosystems, yet small and disoriented when we are surrounded by the video installation by Tabaimo.”

    Tabaimo, who represented Japan at the 2011 Venice Biennale, is one of her homeland’s leading young artists. Her surreal, technologically sophisticated video installations of hand-drawn animation reference the aesthetic of traditional ukiyo-e woodblock prints of the 18th and 19th centuries and the modern phenomenon of Japanese anime cartoons. Her installation danDAN, shown at its full size for the first time in the United States, provides the experience of being in a home where the rooms shift, the walls become the ceiling and reality is turned upside-down.Capture # 9

    Visitors can walk through Gregory Euclide’s  site-specific work, Take it with You — Toledo, to enter the Canaday Gallery, where approximately 40  small worlds are rendered in various media. Euclide’s installation incorporates sticks, dirt, wooden creates and other recycled items found at the Museum and its environs to create miniature worlds viewed through peep holes in a structure that cascades from the second floor gallery area to the Museum’s first floor.

    Rich in detail, the dioramas of Joe Fig’s artist studios and Lori Nix’s photographs of post-apocalyptic scenes she created in miniature are breathtaking in their realism.Joe Fig, Jasper Johns

    There’s also a fully functional, 65-square-foot house on the terrace of the Museum on Monroe Street that is part of the exhibition. The smallest home designed by Jay Shafer of the Tumbleweed Tiny House Company, the extra-efficient  house illustrates the current trend of downsizing.

    The Toledo Museum of Art is a nonprofit arts institution funded through individual donations, foundation grants, corporate sponsorships, and investments. The Ohio Arts Council helps fund programs at the Toledo Museum of Art through a sustainable grant program that encourages economic growth, educational excellence, and cultural enrichment for all Ohioans.

    Illustrations:
    1. Lori Nix, Library from The City series. Chromogenic print, 2006. Courtesy of the artist © Lori Nix

    2. Gregory Euclide, Capture #9. Acrylic, buckthorn root, cedar needles, foam, grass, paint can, sedum, sponge 47 x 24 x 17 in. 2009. Courtesy of the artist and David B. Smith Gallery © Gregory Euclide, 2011

    3. Joe Fig, Jasper Johns 1963. Wood, polymer clay, oil, acrylic paint, metal, plastic, paper, canvas, fabric, and pencil, 2008. Courtesy of the artist and Cristin Tierney Gallery © Joe Fig

  • Pirate Eyes

    By Ferida Wolff

    I currently have pirate eyes. That does not mean that I am covetous or lascivious or that I desire to pillage. It means that I am looking through one eye at a time as I try to function day by day, at least for the next two weeks.

    Here’s the story:  I went to my ophthalmologist for my yearly check-up. Usually she asks me how I’m doing, I tell her fine, I get a reassurance that my eyes are okay and a new prescription. This time I had some questions for her. How come even though I clean my glasses several times (read constantly) during the day my vision still seems cloudy? Why is it getting harder to read, or watch TV, or do all my usual things? Have you seen the lovely halos around the lights at night? We went through the exam and she answered all of my questions with one word — cataracts.

    I knew I had them and that they were slowly growing but I wasn’t quite prepared for the immediacy of what my eye doctor said; she could not correct my vision and I would need to have the cataracts removed. That meant operations. On my eyes. I understand that I had worn contact lenses for a good chunk of my life, which entailed putting my fingers directly into my eyes every morning and then plucking the lenses off each evening. I got used to that. This, however, was something that unsettled me. A surgeon would have to cut into my eye, which is a whole different ballgame.

    A cataract is a clouding of the clear lens of the eye. The lens would have to be taken out and replaced with a plastic lens. If I didn’t do it, eventually the lens would cloud over so much that I wouldn’t be able to see. I remember my sister saying when her cataracts were growing that it was like having her eyes smeared with a thin coating of mayonnaise. I stopped eating mayonnaise after that.

    So this week I had the first of the cataracts removed. The operation wasn’t difficult (or as creepy) as I thought it would be and now my right eye now sees 20/20, something that I had never been able to do in my entire life. I can actually read street signs from a distance instead of waiting until I am almost underneath, not always the most functional or safe way to drive. I can see the birds on my feeders in detail so I can truly appreciate their individuality. I can clearly see subtitles on TV and recognize faces at fifty paces. That is, if I close my as yet, unoperated-on left eye. Which brings me to my pirate eyes.  I can see distance with one eye and close with the other so I find myself covering one of my eyes to be able to see what I need to see. The technique works for specific tasks but the discrepancy between the visual distances causes my eyes to cross and my brain is not happy. I can hear it yell, What is going on here?Eye Exam from the National Eye Institute

    There is no point in getting glasses because in another two weeks I will have the other operation. The surgeon assures me I will love the results. I should be able to see far and mid-range though I will probably need some cheap reading glasses.

    Meanwhile, working on the computer is a challenge.  I notice that can read by sticking my nose within inches of the monitor and looking out of my left eye. Or I can use an older pair of glasses by patching the lens of my good right eye. Me and Long John Silver — perfect together.

    I know this is temporary but it is trying. No doubt the headaches I suddenly seem to be having are related. And I not alone in my plight. One friend just had a cataract removed and she is experiencing the same kind of disorientation. There was even a comic strip in the newspaper (The Argyle Sweater by Scott Hilburn) showing Little Orphan Annie failing her eye test because of her cataracts. It’s a boomer thing.

    Next week I’ll be a different person, someone who can actually see without relying on an external aid. It will take some adjusting, I’m sure. I’ve heard of two people who were so identified with their glasses that they put in clear, non-prescription lenses in frames so they could continue seeing themselves as they were. I won’t do that.

    No doubt there will be challenges that I can’t even imagine at this point but I choose to see myself as I am, glasses or not, and to meet the world with new eyes, so to speak. Talk to me after it’s all over when I have a more realistic perspective on things. Right now I am too focused on my pirate status. Arghhh.

    Here are some sights (oops, sites) that are helpful in understanding cataracts:

    http://www.nei.nih.gov/health/cataract/cataract_facts.asp

    http://www.aoa.org/x4714.xml

    http://www.allaboutvision.com/conditions/cataracts.htm

    ©2012 Ferida Wolff for SeniorWomen.com

  • The Silent Disease: How Often Should Women Have Bone Tests?

    Experts recommend that older women have regular bone density tests to screen for osteoporosis. But it’s been unclear how often to repeat the tests. A study of nearly 5,000 women now reports that patients with healthy bone density on their first test might safely wait 15 years before getting rescreened.

    Photo of an older woman with a glass of milk.

    Osteoporosis is a disorder marked by weakened bones and an increased risk of fractures. More than 40 million people nationwide either have osteoporosis or are at increased risk for broken bones because of low bone mineral density (osteopenia).

    Osteoporosis is often called a “silent disease” because it usually progresses slowly and without symptoms until a fracture occurs. When low bone density is identified early through screening, lifestyle changes and therapies can help protect bone health and reduce the risk of fractures. That’s why the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends routine screening of bone mineral density for women ages 65 and older.

    To help doctors decide how often to repeat bone density tests in women who don’t have osteoporosis at their initial screening, a research team led by Dr. Margaret Gourlay of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill analyzed data on nearly 5,000 women, age 67 or older. The women were participants in the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures, a long-term nationwide study supported by NIH’s National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS), National Institute on Aging (NIA) and National Center for Research Resources (NCRR).

    Researchers divided the women divided into 4 groups based on initial bone density tests that were either normal or showed mild, moderate or advanced osteopenia. They were given 2 to 5 bone density tests at varying intervals during the 15-year study period.

    As reported in the January 19, 2012, issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, the scientists found that less than 1% of women who initially had normal bone mineral density went on to develop osteoporosis during the study. Only 5% of those with mildly low bone density at the start made the transition to osteoporosis. Overall, the data suggest that women in these 2 categories might safely wait about 15 years before being rescreened for osteoporosis.

    The scientists also found that about 1 in 10 women with moderate osteopenia at baseline developed osteoporosis within 5 years. For those with advanced osteopenia at the start, about 10% had developed osteoporosis within a year, suggesting that 1-year screening intervals might be advisable for this group.

    “If a woman’s bone density at age 67 is very good, then she doesn’t need to be rescreened in 2 years or 3 years, because we’re not likely to see much change,” Gourlay says. “Our study found it would take about 15 years for 10% of women in the highest bone density ranges to develop osteoporosis. That was longer than we expected, and it’s great news for this group of women.”

    These findings can help guide doctors in their bone screening recommendations. Other risk factors, such age, medications or specific diseases, would also influence screening frequency.

    — by Vicki Contie, National Institute of Health Research Matters

    RELATED LINKS: