More People Are Dying Of Hepatitis C

Hepatitis C, a sometimes deadly disease that attacks the liver, is claiming more victims and seems to be particularly dangerous to those born between the years 1945 and 1965 — the age group in which the majority of victims fall. Health officials suggest those born between those years should have their blood checked to see if they’re affected.

According to USA Today, experts estimate that half of the 3.2 million Americans with hepatitis C aren’t aware that they have it. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the disease killed 15,000 people in 2007. The amount of victims has been trending upward over the past decade and is expected to continue over the next 10 to 15 years. Another CDC-published study estimated that increased screening of the at-risk age group could spare 82,000 lives.

The good news is that the disease is generally curable with aggressive treatment. If you are at risk due to your age or other factors, do yourself and your loved ones a favor by getting screened.

Hepatitis C deaths up, Boomers most at risk [USA Today]


Edit Your Comment

  1. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    I blame Cat. That dude gets around.

    • Cat says:

      ‚ô™ ‚ô´ ‚ô© ‚ô¨ ‚ô≠ ‚ôÆ ‚ôØ
      It’s the number one…
      Fact of life…
      Cat gets around!
      ‚ô™ ‚ô´ ‚ô© ‚ô¨ ‚ô≠ ‚ôÆ ‚ôØ

  2. SkokieGuy says:

    Because if you’re dead, you can’t be a good consumer?

  3. ahecht says:

    There really needs to be a way to philter out all this philler. I already have lifehacker and cnn in my rss reader, I don’t need it regurgitated here.

  4. Cat says:

    This is an outrage!
    Why are people dying from Hepatitis C? As a consumer of hepatitis C, I feel this is an important consumer issue. We can send a man to the moon, but we can’t we ensure the safety of our nation’s hepatitis C supply?

    Wait.. what? What do you mean, we can’t send a man to the moon?

    Oh, never mind…

  5. MichaelRyanSD says:

    Phil……Stop……Just Stop

  6. Scooter McGee says:

    “The Consumerist, Shoppers Bite Back”

    Because nothing of any relevance is being posted.

  7. saltyoak says:

    Thanks Phil first I heard of this. Honestly how much are you haters contributing financially and with your time to keep this page going quit your bitching its overkill. not going to change anything with gripes. thank you

    • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

      I think most readers contribute in the $20 – $50 ballpark per year. It’s part of the reason why so many people are attached to the site and disappointed to see a lack of real consumer issues or information.

  8. McRib wants to know if you've been saved by the Holy Clown says:

    So, the post menopausal age group is dispensing with birth control?
    Not surprising.

  9. u1itn0w2day says:

    I think this study is probably affected because more people have health care or are using the mainstream medical industry which includes reporting their findings. My guess there is simply more data to choose from.

    I had a doc who refused to deal in HMOs and insurance only taking cash or check. He was a good doc but I doubt his work became part of a statistical data pool.

  10. shadowboxer524 says:

    I’ve never really been bothered in the past of the various “off-topic” posts that would yield a few “Why is this on Consumerist?” comments.

    It’s come to a head now, however, with Phil’s marathon of personal tips posts yesterday followed by this post today. As far as I’m concerned, this is outside the scope of Consumerist and does not fall within the mission of Consumers Union. These posts are more appropriate for Lifehacker or other websites. And it’s not just the type of post but also the quality. Much of what this site is now is an aggregator of other news on the web and not unique articles written specifically for Consumerist.

    This is very disappointing, considering how much I’ve adored the site for the three years I’ve visited. I can simply no longer tolerate the diminished quality to visit daily as in the past. I’ll probably come back once a week or less.

    I’m also going to write to Consumers Union to give them feedback regarding their subsidiary, as well as e-mailing Meg. I tried to find e-mail addresses of the board members to contact them as well but I couldn’t find any published.

    I’m sure some of you will criticize that I wrote this comment, but Consumerist has long empowered us to take charge against businesses that are doing things we don’t like. If we continue to tolerate a poor product (as I have been for a while), things may continue to get worse and they certainly won’t get better.

    If you’re unsatisfied, write a few e-mails, unsubscribe from feeds/Twitter, visit less often, don’t donate.

    This comment may be disemvoweled/deleted, but, Consumerist, this is my feedback to you! Like any good business, you should listen to your customers. Don’t take us for granted.

  11. lovemypets00 - You'll need to forgive me, my social filter has cracked. says:

    This is absolutely a consumer issue. Just read the article – chronic Hep C is the leading cause of liver transplants (around $100K and if you don’t have insurance, how would you pay for it?)

    “CDC’s current guidelines recommend testing people known to be at high risk, and until last summer there wasn’t much enthusiasm even for that step: the reasons are the year-long, two-drug treatment promised to cure only 40 percent of people; treatment was so grueling that many patients refused to try it and treatment could cost up to $30,000.” $30 grand? OMG. But two new drugs could be added, but also adding another $1000 to $4000/week to the cost.

    What about if you are diagnosed? How will that affect rates on life insurance, and would you be able to purchase your own health insurance?

    • shadowboxer524 says:

      I think your connecting this to consumer issues is spurious, tangential at best. Using this line of reasoning, you could connect nearly everything to consumer issues, because almost everything affects the economy, or insurance, or yadda, yadda, yadda, in some way. That’s no kind of way to focus on consumerism, however; that scope is too broad.

      But even if I thought the connection was valid enough to warrant a post, Phil makes no attempt to connect it. You did a much better job in your comment. Phil simply summarized a health article and suggested readers/loved ones get screened.

  12. shorebird says:

    On 9/11 I went to the American Red Cross and donated blood.
    A few weeks later I received a letter thanking me.
    In the letter was some bad news.
    I was Hep C positive.
    That was later confirmed by the VA.

    I underwent an Interferon treatment requiring that I take one injection each week for ELEVEN MONTHS.
    I tested “No Viral Load” at the end of that time.
    14 Months later I tested positive again.

    I was then entered into a experimental treatment requiring shots of a synthetic form of interferon.
    Again the treatment lasted 11 months.
    However I had to be injected EVERY DAY.
    The side effects are miserable.
    You feel as if you have the flu.
    You have very little energy.
    And your mood is worse than that of Oscar The Grouch.

    That 2nd treatment regimen ended in 2006 with the virus non-detectable once again.
    That is how things stand as far as I know today.

    As I understand the cost of the 2nd treatment regimen was in the area of $450,000
    for the medicine, lab work and Dr. visits,

    I was eligible for the experimental program in part because my liver had not been damaged by the virus at that time.

    I am a former Combat Medic who served in the US Army from ’72 to ’76.
    My exposure to hepatitis was during that time.