Today’s health problems are tomorrow’s health crises

https://www.axios.com/public-health-crisis-trends-future-c24f9720-4657-45f2-ab73-05a8bb9a4d3e.html

Image result for Today's health problems are tomorrow's health crises

The health troubles we’re seeing now — especially among young people — will continue to strain the system for years and even decades to come.

The big picture: Rising obesity rates now will translate into rising rates of type 2 diabetes and heart disease. The costs of the opioid crisis will continue to mount even after the acute crisis ends. And all of this will strain what’s already the most expensive health care system in the world.

By the numbers: 18% of American kids are now obese, according to new CDC data. So are roughly 40% of adults. And it’s projected to get worse.

  • That helps explain why diabetes rates are also rising, and why roughly 30% of adults have high blood pressure.

Why it matters: More obese children means there will be more adults down the road with chronic conditions like diabetes — which can’t be cured, only managed — and these diseases in turn increase the risk of further complications, such as kidney disease and stroke.

  • Diabetes roughly doubles your lifetime health care bills, according to the CDC, and costs the U.S. a total of $245 billion per year.
  • As the price of insulin continues to skyrocket, the disease only gets harder for patients to manage, if they can afford treatment at all.

We’re only beginning to see the full costs of the opioid crisis, even though it has raged for years.

  • A White House report earlier this week pegged the cost of the epidemic at a staggering $696 billion last year alone, including the cost of productivity lost to addiction.
  • The tide has only barely begun to turn on overall overdose deaths — they still numbered around 68,000 last year.
  • And many survivors of the epidemic will face long-term health costs. Addiction recovery can be a lifelong process requiring sustained investments. It has also led to skyrocketing rates of Hepatitis C — some states have seen their infection rates rise by more than 200% over the past decade.

Groundbreaking new treatments offer the first-ever cure for Hepatitis C, but at price tags so high that states are experimenting with entirely new ways of paying for the drugs, fearing the status quo simply can’t bear these costs all at once.

The bottom line: The flaws in the U.S. health care system compound one another.

  • They reward doctors and hospitals for performing more treatment on sick people, and those treatments are expensive. That leaves big gaps in prevention, which drives the need for more expensive treatment.
  • That’s how we ended up with the world’s most expensive health care system, but without a particularly healthy population to show for it. And that trajectory isn’t changing.

 

 

 

 

Is Gun Violence a Public Health Issue?

https://mailchi.mp/burroughshealthcare/february-8-1687741?e=7d3f834d2f

Image result for gun violence research

The United States population is 327 million and there are 393 million guns in this country. The issue of guns and gun control remains one of the nation’s most divisive.

As the Los Angeles Times explains in a recent editorial, “to truly address gun violence, we need to view it through a public health lens — one that reframes the issue as a preventable disease that can be cured with the help of all community members.”

The American Public Health Association (APHA) shared recently that the U.S. has the dubious distinction of “outpacing” any other country with a gun violence burden. Highly publicized statistics vary from source to source, but they do bear repeating, beginning with the fact that:

  • 82 percent of all firearm deaths in nearly two dozen populous, high-income countries—

including Australia, France, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom — occur in the U.S.

  • 91 percent of children ages 0-14 killed by firearms in this group of nations were from the U.S.

The Gun Violence Archive stays up to date on this year’s sobering victim numbers, already standing at:

Total incidents:         36,390
Deaths:                       9,578
Injuries:                       19,102
Mass shooting:               268

Ways but No Will

Having dedicated himself to the science of gun violence, health policy professor David Hemenway, Ph.D., of the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health says we’re all watching too much media where “guns are the solution to so many problems. The good guy with the gun is the big hero.”

In real life, guns are not solutions to problems. The myth is imposed early and continues to be perpetuated. Children are exposed to 90 percent of movies, 68 percent of video games and 60 percent of shows that include violence, Common Sense Media said six years ago. Current numbers are surely much higher.

Dr. Hemenway also balks at the old “we’ll be able to protect ourselves when that intruder comes into our space” argument. It takes lots of training, repetition and practicing, over and over, to do the right thing right, he says, and most don’t have time or resources to get that — right.

Although the United States is an international mega-power, it as much to learn, Dr. Hemenway says, noting that “every other country has shown us the way to vastly reduce our problems.” That means if other countries can get control of gun reasonability — as New Zealand did in a hurry following its first mass shooting — we can, too.

Repeated surveys of Americans say they favor universal background checks. As recent history has shown, whether or not that will come to fruition still remains unanswered.

Prevent Rather Than Repair

The idea of “community” as it relates to “public” means motivating responsible gun owners, says Dr. Hemenway, citing his colleague Cathy Barber, M.P.A., at T.H. Chan’s Means Matter campaign. She collaborates on a number of pertinent issues with gun owners, advocates and trainers, as well as gun shop owners.

Dr. Hemenway’s must-do list includes licensing of gun owners and all that entails, including strong background checks, and only allowing firearm sales to a licensed owner. He also recommends a federal agency to oversee the massive gun issue — a heretofore novel and yet seemingly sound idea.

The medical community has taken its stand on the public health effects of gun violence after frequently describing for the rest of us in riveting detail what it’s like to treat victims of shootings. Formally, members have established the nonprofit American Foundation for Firearm Injury Reduction in medicine (AFFIRM), with more than 40,000 healthcare colleagues.

The group seeks to inform medical protocols for their peers on the frontlines of gun violence, and to engage other first responders and stakeholders, as well as to educate and inform the public. They say they’d rather prevent than repair, and they worry about a culture of indifference and acceptance — of normalization that leads to divisiveness in this nation.

Meeting of the Minds Needed

It’s tough to solve a problem if stakeholders can’t come together to share ideas and solutions, the kind of proactive collaboration that provided results and conclusions around seat belts and smoking.

So why doesn’t the federal government jump headlong into gun violence research, specifically the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH)? The Dickey Amendment came to fruition in the early 1990s when gun violence did become a public health issue.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) said then that the CDC was biased against guns, and attracted Congressional support that basically eliminated any funding “to advocate or promote gun control”: That meant no studies related to firearms, and in 2011, the amendment reached to the NIH. After the Sandy Hook school shooting, President Obama told the CDC that the Dickey Amendment shouldn’t completely ignore funding for gun violence research, but Congress stopped it nonetheless. Currently, the amendment isn’t really in effect but there’s still no funding.

To that end, early this year, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) introduced H.R. 674 and Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA) introduced S.184, the Gun Violence Prevention Research Act of 2019, which was referred to the Subcommittee on Health, where it’s been languishing. It would provide CDC funding to study gun violence for the next five fiscal years.

Random Attacks Are Few
 
If the United States is unable to tackle more research into gun violence, that hasn’t stopped smaller, independent studies, like one from the state of Utah. It published a report in 2018 with the T.H. Chan School, looking at suicide and firearm injury. It was supported by both parties, and by gun rights champions.

The results showed that 87 percent of those who died by suicide could have passed a background check and that Utahns with mental health or drinking issues weren’t properly storing or locking up guns. The most surprising fact: Those random attacks that people are warned about as reasons to carry guns occurred only three or four times a year.

So with all we know and all that’s yet to be known if more scientific research is conducted, the following have been suggested as remedies to the gun violence epidemic. The solutions run the gamut from more basic to creative:

  • Universal background checks
  • An assault weapons ban, along with a ban on high-capacity magazines
  • Mandatory license needed to buy a gun
  • Mandatory gun registration
  • Mandatory training for owners
  • Waiting periods for firearm purchase
  • More taxes on gun manufacturers
  • Safe and secure gun storage
  • No sales to anyone on a terrorist watch list
  • No sales to anyone convicted of a felony
  • Red-flag law: Families can ask a judge to temporarily prohibit an individual from possessing a firearm if those parties believe that individual might commit violence.

Also mentioned as possible solutions:

  • The federal government could buy the domestic handgun manufacturing industry.
  • It could ban the import of all handguns.
  • It could offer cash buybacks for all handguns in circulation.
  • A person buying a gun would have to enlist for military reserve service.

Scientific American sees it this way, opining that we just don’t know enough about gun violence perpetrators and we should.

Did they get firearms legally, or how did they get them?

Are our current laws being used to disarm dangerous people?

What do we do about the proliferation of underground gun markets?

How can we better evaluate violence prevention policies and programs, as in “Do they work?”
 
As the editorial board notes, research doesn’t infringe on Second Amendment rights, but it does support those other, unalienable rights we are all due, thanks to the Declaration of Independence. Don’t forget “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The Drivers of Health: What makes us healthy?

The Drivers

 

What makes us healthy?

We have an intuitive sense that things like what we eat, how much we exercise, the quality of our water and air, and getting appropriate health care when sick all help us stay healthy, but how much do each of these factors matter?

Studies have also shown that our incomes, education, even racial identity are associated with health — so-called “social determinants of health.”

How much do social determinants matter? How much does the health system improve our health?

In the 1970s the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tried to answer these questions but had little rigorous science to guide it. Though we know a great deal more today, they still have not been fully answered. This is no mere curiosity — knowing what makes us healthy will help us direct investments into the right programs.

Over the years, many frameworks have been developed to illuminate what affects health. The relationships are so complex that no single framework captures everything. To get us started on this research project — and our broader conversation about what drives health — we created a model that allows us to explore some of the dimensions of these drivers, and their relationships to each other.

The Framework

We developed our framework by reviewing research on factors that influence health and surveying similar projects and tools from prominent organizations . It is not meant to be complete, but a starting point that allows us to think about what drives health and how.

Indirect vs. Direct Factors
Many things affect health, some directly and others indirectly. Government/policy, income/wealth, education, and racial identity don’t necessarily affect health in an immediate way. They are indirect factors that tend to affect health through complex pathways. Those pathways usually involve other factors that more immediately affect health. These are the direct factors such as occupation, health care access, and health behaviors.

Why these Outcomes?
There are many possible health outcomes. The framework includes four examples—age-adjusted mortality, life expectancy, quality of life/well-being, and functional status. These outcomes are commonly studied, prevalent in the literature, and reflect the kinds of things people care most about.

The Drivers