By Jill Abramson

Like a lot of Americans, I'm obsessing about health insurance. Only in my case, the issue is whether or not to buy pet insurance for Scout.

Soon, she will be 6 months old, the age recommended for spaying, a procedure that will probably cost several hundred dollars, once tests and medications are included. A less invasive technique, done through laparoscopy, is far more expensive. And we’ve already spent quite a bit on vaccinations and routine checkups. Then there are possible future expenses, like an accident or a really severe malady, like cancer.

As with humans, pet insurance programs are complex; some are expensive, and it’s hard to tell for sure what kinds of illness and conditions will be covered. Most plans offer tiers of coverage, which grow in price depending on how expansive the coverage is, the breed of dog, where you live and other factors. For many pet owners, of course, neither veterinary care for complex health problems nor paying monthly pet insurance bills is affordable or even possible, so I know that having the choice is a luxury.

The costs I’ve checked out for Scout with two leading companies that offer pet health insurance range from monthly premiums of about $12 to $45. Ouch. Personal experience, discussions with a few trusted veterinarians and guidance from friends and fellow dog owners have tipped me in favor of buying the insurance, although I am still poring over the fine print and deciding among plans.

When he was a pup, Buddy, our dog before Scout, got into a box of chocolates (poisonous for dogs) that one of our children had carelessly left within reach. An expensive nighttime visit to the emergency clinic ensued. At midlife, Buddy also developed unbearable skin allergies, requiring tests and even biopsies, before a change in his diet brought the problem under control. What we spent on Buddy’s health issues (as well as the more serious problems we confronted with Dinah, recounted in an earlier column) probably exceeded the cost of insurance, even over his long life span. Read more...



via http://www.bestfriendnyc.com/

by Carla Baranauckas

When Chad, a yellow Labrador retriever, moved in with Claire Vaccaro’s family in Manhattan last spring, he already had an important role. As an autism service dog, he was joining the family to help protect Ms. Vaccaro’s 11-year-old son, Milo. Like many companion animals, whether service dogs or pets, Chad had an immediate effect — the kind of effect that is noticeable but has yet to be fully understood through scientific study. And it went beyond the tether that connects dog and boy in public.

“Within, I would say, a week, I noticed enormous changes,” Ms. Vaccaro said of Milo, whose autism impairs his ability to communicate and form social bonds. “More and more changes have happened over the months as their bond has grown. He’s much calmer. He can concentrate for much longer periods of time. It’s almost like a cloud has lifted.”

Dr. Melissa A. Nishawala, clinical director of the autism-spectrum service at the Child Study Center at New York University, said she saw “a prominent and noticeable change” in Milo, even though the dog just sat quietly in the room. “He started to give me narratives in a way he never did,” she said, adding that most of them were about the dog.

The changes have been so profound that Ms. Vaccaro and Dr. Nishawala are starting to talk about weaning Milo from some of his medication.

Anecdotes abound on the benefits of companion animals — whether service and therapy animals or family pets — on human health. But in-depth studies have been rare. Now the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, part of the National Institutes of Health, is embarking on an effort to study whether these animals can have a tangible effect on children’s well-being.

In partnership with the Waltham Center for Pet Nutrition in England (part of the Mars candy and pet food company), the child health institute is seeking proposals that “focus on the interaction between humans and animals.” In particular, it is looking for studies on how these interactions affect typical development and health, and whether they have therapeutic and public-health benefits. It also invites applications for studies that “address why relationships with pets are more important to some children than to others” and that “explore the quality of child-pet relationships, noting variability of human-animal relationships within a family.”

The national institutes’ interest in this type of research goes back at least two decades. Valerie Maholmes, who directs research on child development and behavior at the children’s health institute, said that at a broad-ranging meeting in 1987 on the health benefits of pets, the N.I.H. “concluded that there needed to be much more research,” especially on child development.

People working with animals expect the research to back up their observations. At Children’s Hospital of Orange County in Southern California, for instance, dozens of volunteers regularly take their dogs to visit patients. Children being treated for serious illnesses often have the blues, anxiety or depression. Animals also become part of the therapeutic program, especially in the areas involving speech and movement.

“The human-animal bond bypasses the intellect and goes straight to the heart and emotions and nurtures us in ways that nothing else can,” said Karin Winegar, whose book “Saved: Rescued Animals and the Lives They Transform” (Da Capo, 2008) chronicles human-animal interactions. “We’ve seen this from coast to coast, whether it’s disabled children at a riding center in California or a nursing home in Minnesota, where a woman with Alzheimer’s could not recognize her husband but she could recognize their beloved dog.”

via http://www.bestfriendnyc.com/