Made the change and will send out a flyer by the end of the day.

On various and differing odd occasions, I find myself worrying about a variety of problems; the solution to which, is most probably completely beyond my control. It may be late at night or while I’m driving down a traffic-less stretch of road, but I find I am concerned to learn that General Mills, the makers of many brands of foods, has added language to their website informing consumers that they give up their right to sue the company if they download coupons or enter a sponsored sweepstakes.

In case of a dispute, from now on you have to use informal negotiation via email or through arbitration. I can barely manage to get my bank balance by email let alone try to negotiate, and although arbitration may be an efficient way to settle disputes, how do I know the arbitrator will not favor powerful, wealthy General Mills? 

If I lose my voice or require a stomach bypass because of some poisoned object in their Cheerios, I now can’t sue because I used a coupon to buy their cereal? That’s a worrisome trend, to put it mildly. What if General Motors put in place a similar rule? If you had taken a “test drive” it could negate a suit against a faulty Cobalt car.

I am really distressed to learn of the closing of the beautiful and irreplaceable Rizzoli bookstore in Manhattan. This remarkable landmark building on West 57th Street was not only a beautiful building to visit with its cast iron chandeliers, luminous window and decorated vaulted ceiling, the specialized collection of illustrated subjects like fashion, interior design, art, architecture, photography and literature … many in magnificent heirloom-quality books, are unavailable anywhere else.

So many wonderful buildings are demolished (the Folk Art Museum will be lost in an expansion of MOMA) or overwhelmed by the continuing development of more and more luxury condominiums.

Another item relegated to the back pages of some newspapers is how in the near future, doctors may be required to consider the cost of treatment in suggesting what care plan to follow. The society of oncologists, for example, alarmed by the prices of some cancer medicines, is developing a score card to evaluate drugs based on cost and value as well as their efficacy and side effects. One example given was of two drugs, equally effective in treating macular degeneration. But one costs $50 a dose and the other an unbelievable $2,000. Medicare could save millions if everyone used the cheaper drug, but the FDA has not yet approved the less expensive one for use in the eye since it may carry an additional, but slight, safety risk.

Some drugs are so expensive that insurers are saying only seriously ill patients should be treated. Doctors are concerned about the conflict in trying to be both providers of care and financial overseers. They don’t want to be in the position of not prescribing something because it is bad for their state’s Medicare budget.

Dr. Martin A. Samuels of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston says, “There should be forces in society who should be concerned about the budget, about how many MRIs we do, but they shouldn’t be functioning simultaneously as doctors.” And Dr. Daniel P. Sulmasy, professor of medicine and ethics at the U. of Chicago, put it right into our laps when he said, “In some ways, it represents a failure of wider society to take up the issue.”

While, I’ve pretty much given up worrying about the overwhelming state of world affairs, these other issues nag at me, and I keep wondering what I can do to change them. Is anyone else out there worried, too?

Contact Jean Cherni, certified senior adviser for Senior Living Solutions and Pearce Plus, a full-service program for seniors contemplating a move, at jeancherni@sbcglobal.net or 49 Rose St., Apt. 510, Branford, 06405.

I'm reading: Made the change and will send out a flyer by the end of the day.