BOSTON?American homes are increasingly besieged by menacing zombies, invading aliens, and threatening criminals. The fact that these beings exist only on-screen?as characters in popular video games?may be small comfort to parents concerned about limiting their children's exposure to violence. The October issue of the Harvard Mental Health Letter reports that worries about video game violence are probably overblown, but also offers advice on how parents can minimize any potential harm.

As a first step, check a video game's Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) rating to better understand what type of content the game has. It may also help to place video consoles and computers in common areas of the home, such as the kitchen or living room, rather than in children's bedrooms. Finally, set limits on the amount of time youths play these games. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends two hours or less of total screen time per day?a limit that includes television and computers as well as video games.

Dr. Michael Miller, editor in chief of the Harvard Mental Health Letter, points out that video games share much in common with other pursuits that are enjoyable and rewarding, but that can become hazardous in certain contexts. Parents can best protect their children by remaining engaged with them and providing limits and guidance as necessary.

Read the full-length article: "Violent video games and young people"

Also in this issue:

• Cognitive enhancement therapy for schizophrenia
• Managing dental phobia
• Treatment for adolescent depression
• Living with bipolar disorder
• Why eating slowly makes people feel full
• Antidepressants and cataracts

The Harvard Mental Health Letter is available from Harvard Health Publications (www.health.harvard.edu), the publishing division of Harvard Medical School, for $59 per year. Subscribe at www.health.harvard.edu/mental or by calling 877-649-9457 (toll-free).

XXX

The senators' letter follows reports that show that the Department of Labor has dismissed more than 1000 of the approximately 1,600 cases that have been filed by whistleblowers alleging retaliation under this law.  The cases were allegedly dismissed on the grounds that the employee alleging retaliation worked for a non-public subsidiary of a publicly traded parent company and was not therefore covered by the law.

"We strongly disagree with this legal interpretation. It erroneously excludes thousands of employees Congress meant to protect when it passed Sarbanes-Oxley and contradicts the spirit and intent of the overall legislation," the senators wrote.

The senators are the authors of the corporate whistleblower protection provision in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and have been outspoken advocates for whistleblowers following the Enron scandal.  The Senators have previously written to President Bush in 2002 objecting to interpretations made by White House staff following the signing of the law, to the Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman in 2004, and to Labor Secretary Elaine Chao in 2008 explaining the intent of the law.  While the current administration has pledged to review its handling of whistleblower cases under Sarbanes-Oxley, it appears that it is interpreting the law in a similar fashion.  The senators have asked for details of an ongoing internal review and how recent changes to the whistleblower provisions will be implemented.

Here is a copy of the text of the letter to Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis.

October 6, 2010

The Honorable Hilda L. Solis

Secretary of Labor

United States Department of Labor

200 Constitution Ave, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20210

Dear Secretary Solis:

We authored the corporate whistleblower provisions of the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act, section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Since passage of the law in 2002, we have been frustrated by the executive branch's overly restrictive interpretation of these provisions.  It is our understanding that the Department of Labor has dismissed more than 1000 of the approximately 1,600 cases that have been filed by whistleblowers alleging retaliation under this law.

Many of these cases were dismissed on the grounds that the employee alleging retaliation worked for a non-public subsidiary of a publicly traded parent company and was not therefore covered by the law. As we made clear in our September 2008 letter to then-Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, we strongly disagree with this legal interpretation. It erroneously excludes thousands of employees Congress meant to protect when it passed Sarbanes-Oxley and contradicts the spirit and intent of the overall legislation.

We are optimistic that the recently passed Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act will clarify any remaining confusion on this point.  Section 929A of the new law makes clear that the whistleblower provisions in Sarbanes-Oxley include "any subsidiary or affiliate whose financial information is included in the consolidated financial statements of [a publicly traded] company."  The legislation also extends the whistleblower protections in section 806 to employees of nationally recognized statistical rating organizations.

Additionally, we were encouraged to read in a July 22 article published by the Center for Public Integrity that Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels has ordered a "top-to-bottom" review of the Department's handling of claims brought under the whistleblower provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley.  We would like more information about the Department's progress in conducting this review, including the scope of the review process and the timeline for its completion.  We are also interested to hear about the Department's recent decision to provide employees who file whistleblower complaints a copy of employer responses to that complaint, and to learn why the Department previously withheld this information.

Whistleblowers are vital in promoting accountability and transparency, but they are also extremely vulnerable to retaliation.  They need and deserve the protection of the law, and they should be able to rely on vigilant application of the law by the Department.  Accordingly, we ask that you please work with staff from our offices to schedule a briefing on this important matter.

Sincerely,

PATRICK LEAHY, Chairman                                         CHARLES GRASSLEY, Senator

Common Sense On:
New Consumer-Friendly Improvements to www.HealthCare.gov

By Senator Tom Harkin

The historic health reform bill, The Affordable Care Act, was signed into law just over six months ago and Iowans are already seeing many of the benefits.  For example, the new Patient's Bill of Rights, which cracks down on the worst abuses of health insurance companies and gives Iowans and all Americans important new protections, is now in effect.  

By now, all Iowans should be familiar with www.HealthCare.gov.  Launched on July 1, it is the first website of its kind to bring information and links to health insurance plans into one place to make it easy for consumers to learn about and compare their insurance choices.  Just last week, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that new information and tools have been added to the website that will make the health insurance market more transparent, increase competition and help lower costs for individuals.  These are changes that put consumers, not the insurance companies, in the driver's seat.

What changes have recently been made to www.HealthCare.gov?

For the first time, the site makes price estimates for private insurance policies available, allowing consumers to easily compare health insurance plans.  This one-stop shopping takes the guesswork and confusion out of buying insurance.  So far, more than 225 insurance companies have provided information about their individual and family plans for more than 4,400 policies, including policies in every state.  Consumers can search for and compare information on plans available to them based on their age, gender, family size, tobacco use and location.  

What details about the insurance plans can I now find on www.HealthCare.gov?

Consumers can find a great deal of information on each insurance plan including: monthly premium estimates, deductibles, maximum out-of-pocket costs and services covered.

What additional protections for consumers are available at www.HeathCare.gov?

According to HHS, to help consumers make more informed choices, the site includes new information including two notable metrics never before made public:

• Insurance providers are required to provide the percentage of people who applied for insurance and were denied coverage.

• Insurance companies are required to provide the percentage of applicants who were charged higher premiums because of their health status.

Where can I find more information on health reform?

For more information on the health reform bill please feel free to contact any of my offices or my website at http://harkin.senate.gov.

###

A PDF version of the column is available by clicking here.

St. James Lutheran Church in Bettendorf will hold their 5th annual Halloween Party for kids on Saturday, October 23rd from 2-4 p.m. in the church's basement.  There will be games, prizes, treats, face painting and more.  Wear your costume and bring a friend!

St. James Lutheran Church is located at 1705 Oak Street in Bettendorf,  just up the hill from K&K Hardware.  The phone number is 355-4161 and the email address is stjamesbett@q.com.