Source: Health Affairs

Lowell Dempsey from Burness Communications has brought to my attention a recent debate of environmental mediated diseases in US children.

As Congress continues to debate how to reduce the federal budget deficit and tackle rising health care costs, one area overlooked is the price tag for preventable illness in children caused by unhealthy environments. A new study says poor health in children caused by environmental factors such as air pollution and exposure to toxic chemicals costs the United States more than $70 billion a year. This figure represents a dramatic increase in recent years, rising from 2.8 percent of total health care costs in 1997 to 3.5 percent in 2008.

· A second study found that schools located in areas with the highest air pollution had the highest proportion of students failing to meet state educational standards. These same schools had the lowest attendance rates (a potential indicator of poor health). To protect the country’s 53 million schoolchildren, we must insist on a minimum distance between sources of pollution and school locations, says author Paul Mohai of the University of Michigan.

Abstract

(Full article and original source can be found at: Health Affairs)

A 2002 analysis documented $54.9 billion in annual costs of environmentally mediated diseases in US children. However, few
important changes in federal policy have been implemented to prevent exposures to toxic chemicals. We therefore updated and expanded the previous analysis and found that the costs of lead poisoning, prenatal methylmercury exposure, childhood cancer, asthma, intellectual disability, autism, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder were $76.6 billion in 2008. To prevent further increases in these costs, efforts are needed to institute premarket testing of new chemicals; conduct toxicity testing on chemicals already in use; reduce lead-based paint hazards; and curb mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Hello Readers!

In a follow up post from yesterday’s County Health Rankings (CHR) post, I interview the research team about various aspects of the project.

Please feel free to copy the interview as long as the “The Public Health Bugle” is cited.

By: Ali Al-Rajhi, Editor of the Public Health Bugle

Ali: How did the idea of county health rankings develop?

CHR Team: The health of states has been ranked by UnitedHealth Foundation (and its predecessor organizations) for over 20 years (America’s Health Rankings), but much of what can be done to improve health happens at a local level too. In 2002, the University of Wisconsin’s Dr. David Kindig and Dr. Patrick Remington decided to rank the health of Wisconsin’s counties. They released the first Wisconsin County Health Rankings in 2003.

After several years, the Wisconsin County Health Rankings came to the attention of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), which invited the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute (UWPHI) to submit a proposal to them to prepare rankings for other states. In January 2009, RWJF awarded UWPHI with a grant to conduct population health improvement research and prepare rankings for all 50 states.

Ali: There is obvious application of these data on a national, regional, and local level, in terms of policy development; but how can these data be used by the general public?

CHR Team: Because County Health Rankings are compiled within states, they are a useful tool for state and county leaders developing programs and policies to improve health. But because health is everyone’s business, the Rankings can also help a wide cross-section of community members, including health care professionals, businesses, educators and local grantmakers, as well as the general public, improve the health of their county.

The Rankings help people understand that where they live, learn, work and play matters to their health and that much of what influences health takes place outside of doctors’ offices. The Rankings show community members that while individuals can take steps to improve their own health, such as not smoking, eating healthy foods and exercising, using alcohol appropriately, practicing safe sex, and seeking health care for preventive services, there  are other equally important factors that  influence health, such as getting a good education, employment and income, living in a community where one can feel safe taking a walk, having access to healthy foods in schools, at work, and in grocery stores.

Everyone can take a look at www.countyhealthrankings.org and see how their county is doing compared to others and where there are opportunities to improve the health of their community.   With this information, individuals can make healthy choices for themselves but they can also participate in communitywide efforts, for example, by advocating for healthy foods in schools or for clean indoor air laws, or by participating in neighborhood cleanup or watch programs.

Hello Readers!

I was contacted by a representative at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, about a current project they just completed – The County Health Rankings. The project is an “annual health check-up highlights healthiest and least healthy counties in every state.” This type of work is a great example of how Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) influence policy change within one’s local community. I’ve linked to the original article and provided an excerpt below.

Also, I will post interview questions that I’ve asked a representative from the project later in the week.

The following article is from the The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the complete article can be accessed HERE:

“A new set of reports rank the overall health of nearly every county in the nation. In its second year, the County Health Rankings continue to confirm the critical role that factors such as education, jobs, income, environment and access to health care play in how healthy people are and how long they live.

Published online at www.countyhealthrankings.org by the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Rankings allow people to see how their county compares with others in their state on multiple health factors and against national benchmarks. It is the only tool of its kind that measures the overall health of counties in all 50 states.”

Wired.com

Please feel free to copy the interview as long as the “The Public Health Bugle” is cited.

By: Ali Al-Rajhi, Editor of the Public Health Bugle

Readers, it’s my greatest privilege to present to you Thomas Goetz who I’ve recently started to admire due to his philosophies of preventative health care. In his book The Decision Tree: How to Make Better Choices and Take Control of Your Health, Mr. Goetz explains how using a Decision Tree “nudges us to think through options, to act consciously and with consideration” in relation to making better health decisions.

Biography of Thomas Goetz, Courtesy of Wired Magazine:

As Executive Editor, Thomas Goetz oversees all aspects of Wired Magazine, from story conception to cover packages. In addition to guiding editorial content, Goetz writes frequently for the magazine on health and technology. Recent cover stories include “Your DNA, Decoded,” about the nascent personal genomics industry, “The Truth About Cancer,” about the riddles of early detection, and “The Thin Pill,” about the pharmaceutical industry’s evangelism of metabolic syndrome. His writing has been selected for The Best American Science Writing and The Best Technology Writing anthologies. Since Goetz joined Wired in 2001, the magazine has been nominated for 12 National Magazine Awards, and has won six, including three for General Excellence. Before joining Wired, Goetz was an executive editor at the Industry Standard, the late but lauded news magazine of the Internet economy. He has been a staff reporter at The Wall Street Journal and The Village Voice, and has written for The New York Times Magazine, Details, Rolling Stone and other publications. He holds a Master of Public Health degree from the University of California at Berkeley and a master’s degree in American literature from the University of Virginia. He graduated from Bates College.

Ali Al-Rajhi: Thank you for your time, Thomas. Could you please provide our readers with your background, where your interest in journalism stemmed from, and how your interest in public health developed?

Thomas Goetz: I got to Wired about 10 years ago. I was an English major and got a master in English Literature at the University of Virginia. I came into technology and science as a user. I have a family background in medicine, my father is a doctor, my mother is a nurse, and my other sister is a surgeon. So health was something that I was always exposed to but I had no training myself.

About 5 year ago I started to write on the interface between technology and medicine, in which I realized that a Masters in Public Health (MPH) would be a handy thing to get. So I luckily was able to sniggle my way into Berkeley and they had a nifty 1 year program for people who were already in advanced careers – mostly doctors. But Berkeley was open minded and accepted me, as a journalist, into their MPH program. So I took my spot and had a great time. It was a wonderful exposure to the “nitty-gritty” of public health and that really changed my perspective on public health in a number of ways.

Hello readers!

I wanted to take the time to update everyone on some interesting discussions, research findings, and policies in the U.S. health care system.

1) Fixing America’s Health Care Reimbursement System (source: The Health Care Blog)

A tempest is brewing in physician circles over how doctors are paid. But calming it will require more than just the action of physicians. It will demand the attention and influence of businesses and patient advocates who, outside the health industrial complex, bear the brunt of the nation’s skyrocketing health care costs.

Much responsibility for America’s inequitable health care payment system and its cost crisis is embedded in the informal but symbiotic relationship between the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the American Medical Association’s Relative Value System Update Committee — also known as the RUC.

2) Six slides outlining “childhood obesity by the numbers” (source: Slate Hive, referred by Simoleon Sense)

You may need to scroll down to click on the directional arrows to see all 6 slides.

3) Town Hall Forum: GHI Executive Director Lois Quam on the Future of the Global Health Initiative (video and transcript source: Kaiser Family Foundation)

On March 1, 2011, the Kaiser Family Foundation hosted a town hall-style forum with Lois Quam, the newly appointed Executive Director of the Global Health Initiative (GHI), to listen to global health community perspectives on the progress of the initiative to date and discuss what the future of the U.S. global health policy might look like. The hour-long session was moderated by Jen Kates, Vice President and Director, Global Health & HIV Policy, Kaiser Family Foundation. During the town hall session, Director Quam took questions from the audience.

The Global Health Initiative (GHI), launched by the Obama Administration in May 2009, is an effort by the United States government to coordinate most of its global health activities under one umbrella. The GHI builds upon existing U.S. programs and expands work in other areas, focusing on improving health outcomes in the areas of HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, neglected tropical diseases, maternal health, child health, nutrition, and family planning and reproductive health, as well as strengthening underlying health systems