Sara Libby's blogshttp://www.justmeans.com/editorials/health/210.htmlFri, 25 May 2012 00:28:52 GMThttp://www.justmeans.com en hourly 1http://www.justmeans.com/Supermarkets-study-reveals-public-health-s-close-ties-to-the-economy/16846.htmlWed, 02 Jun 2010 13:33:27 GMTSara Libby It turns out the pin-thin actresses I see stalking the aisles of Whole Foods in Hollywood aren't just outliers - people who shop at Whole Foods and other high-end grocery stores really are less likely to be obese than those who purchase their food staples at low-cost grocery stores, a new study has found, underlying a public health message that is key to fighting the obesity epidemic: Access to affordable healthy food is vital to creating healthy communities.Researchers at the University of Wash Read Full Article ]]> It turns out the pin-thin actresses I see stalking the aisles of Whole Foods in Hollywood aren't just outliers - people who shop at Whole Foods and other high-end grocery stores really are less likely to be obese than those who purchase their food staples at low-cost grocery stores, a new study has found, underlying a public health message that is key to fighting the obesity epidemic: Access to affordable healthy food is vital to creating healthy communities.Researchers at the University of Washington examined the shoppers and shopping patterns of consumers in the Seattle area, where the obesity rate is about 20 percent (much lower than the U.S. average of 34 percent, meaning the study might not translate across the board in other areas). They found that about 4 percent of Whole Foods customers were considered obese; while 40 percent of customers of Albertsons, which offers lower prices, were obese. The study found that an average grocery basket at Whole Foods came to about $370-$420, while an average grocery basket at Albertsons cost between $225-$280.The study's lead,Adam Drewnowski, said the results indicate that public health is intricately tied to economics. ""If people wanted a diet to be cheap, they went to one supermarket. If they wanted their diet to be healthy, they went to another supermarket and spent more. ...If you have $3 to feed yourself, your choices gravitate toward foods which give you the most calories per dollar."The study might serve as a wake-up call to the Obama administration's Healthy Food Financing Initiative, which is pumping $400 million into improving public health and fighting obesity by bringing "grocery stores and other healthy food retailers to underserved urban and rural communities across America." While access is important, the study reveals that it might not be enough to convince cash-strapped consumers to buy nutritionally wholesome foods. Others argue, however, that bringing healthy options into communities where there were none before will help transform people's eating and shopping habits.According to the Department of Health and Human Services:The Healthy Food Financing Initiative will promote a range of interventions that expand access to nutritious foods, including developing and equipping grocery stores and other small businesses and retailers selling healthy food in communities that currently lack these options. Residents of these communities, which are sometimes called "food deserts" and are often found in economically distressed areas, are typically served by fast food restaurants and convenience stores that offer little or no fresh produce. Lack of healthy, affordable food options can lead to higher levels of obesity and other diet-related diseases, such as diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.Whether it proves effective, the White House is right to acknowledge the effect of poverty on public health, particularly when it comes to health issues such as obesity and diabetes that are closely tied to what people eat.Photo credit: Masahiro Ihara]]>http://www.justmeans.com/Health-Reform-Will-Help-the-Young---Sooner-and-Later/15766.htmlTue, 25 May 2010 17:41:21 GMTSara Libby Graduation season is upon us, and for those donning caps and gowns, that's not necessarily a good thing: Though they stand to fare better employment-wise than the class of 2009, the New York Times reports: "Average starting salaries are down, and employers plan to make only 5 percent more job offers to new graduates this spring compared to last spring, when job offers were down 20 percent from 2008 levels, according to a study by the National Association of Colleges and Employers, which tracks r Read Full Article ]]> Graduation season is upon us, and for those donning caps and gowns, that's not necessarily a good thing: Though they stand to fare better employment-wise than the class of 2009, the New York Times reports: "Average starting salaries are down, and employers plan to make only 5 percent more job offers to new graduates this spring compared to last spring, when job offers were down 20 percent from 2008 levels, according to a study by the National Association of Colleges and Employers, which tracks recruitment data."Without jobs, many young people would have faced the looming possibility that they'd be without health insurance for the first time. Before health care reform was passed earlier this year, most insurance booted dependent children from their parents' coverage plans once they finished college. But the affordable care act's provision allowing young adults to remain covered through their parents' plans through the age of 25 is perhaps one of the most reassuring, common-sense safety nets created by the landmark legislation. Sara R. Collins, in a report on the health reform expansion for the Commonwealth Fund, called it "a graduation gift to young adults."Estimates put the number of young people who would have otherwise been kicked off their parents' insurance plans before or upon graduation at about 1.2 million.Young people who find themselves suddenly without health coverage and become sick or injured are more likely to try and wait out their afflictions, a potentially devastating strategy if a serious condition goes untreated or is allowed to spread.Though the provision is scheduled to go into effect in late September, some insurance companies are honoring it ahead of schedule. WellPoint (which also operates Blue Cross Blue Shield), and UnitedHealth Group have both announced that they plan to offer coverage to college grads earlier under some plans - with some coverage extensions beginning June 1. For WellPoint, that might help redeem some favor with the public after their disastrous announcement that they would be instituting steep rate hikes to some California customers - an attempt so unfavorable that it was investigated by the federal government and eventually scrapped.Other provisions in the health reform bill will also allow young people to eventually gain coverage. "About 7.1 million, more than half the total, will be eligible for Medicaid beginning in 2014 because their income is less than 133 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $14,404 for a single person and $29,327 for a family of four. And up to 5.6 million uninsured young people will qualify for government subsidies if they buy private coverage through the insurance exchanges; the subsidies will be available to anyone earning up to 400 percent of the poverty level, or $43,320 for a single person," reports the Times.It's certainly heartening news for graduates that while they might not walk across that stage with a job offer already secured, they'll at least be able to continue their hunt without having to stress about being able to afford health treatments.Photo credit: Chad Miller]]>http://www.justmeans.com/Michelle-Obama-Unveils-Public-Health-Childhood-Obesity-Plan/14905.htmlSat, 15 May 2010 16:05:35 GMTSara Libby Back in February, First Lady Michelle Obama launched the Let's Move! program to tackle the public health epidemic of childhood obesity, which the "Mom in Chief" has made her signature cause. This week, the task force released a report to the president with a large number of specific recommendations for actions that can be taken to address the problem, with the goal of reducing childhood obesity to a rate of 5 percent by 2030.The recommendations are wide-ranging. A sampling:Hospitals and health c Read Full Article ]]> Back in February, First Lady Michelle Obama launched the Let's Move! program to tackle the public health epidemic of childhood obesity, which the "Mom in Chief" has made her signature cause. This week, the task force released a report to the president with a large number of specific recommendations for actions that can be taken to address the problem, with the goal of reducing childhood obesity to a rate of 5 percent by 2030.The recommendations are wide-ranging. A sampling:Hospitals and health care providers should usematernity care practices that empower new mothers to breastfeed,such as the Baby-Friendly hospital standardsFederal and State agencies conducting healthresearch should prioritize research into the effects of possibly obeso-genic chemicalsRestaurants should consider their portionsizes, improve children's menus, and make healthy options the default choice whenever possible Federally-funded and private insurance plansshould cover services necessary to prevent, assess, and provide care tooverweight and obese childrenAs you can see, the suggestions enlist action from everyone from government officials, health care workers, schools, insurance companies, restaurants and marketing campaigns, to parents and families themselves. Many of the recommendations ask for voluntary actions, rather than mandated requirements. But they are specific, realistic and tangible ways to go about tackling the problem.Also innovative is the fact that the report acknowledges the different environments children grow up in, which can contribute to obesity in various ways. One recommendation, for example, calls for sidewalk maintenance or the creation of sidewalks in public housing projects in order to allow kids to walk to school, thereby getting more exercise.Some people argue that the recommendations don't go far enough. Dr. John G. Spangler writes at ABCNews.com that physicians should help lead the charge against this public health crisis:One glaring example would be for the American Academy of Family Physicians -- the professional organization to which I belong -- to rescind its sponsorship by the Coca Cola Company for "health education." The AAFP's patient website, familydoctor.org, recently received a grant "in the strong six figures" to promote "education" on sweetened beverages and hydration. All supported by Coca Cola, which, coincidentally, is fighting against a beverage tax.While that might be true, Michelle Obama deserves credit for creating such an inclusive approach that enlists so many facets of the communities to which children belong; and for distilling a complex problem into this simple message: "at the core of this endeavor is a simple concept we all embrace, which is that children should have good, nutritious food to eat and the chance to be physically active every day, so that they grow up into healthy adults."Photo credit: Let's Move!]]>http://www.justmeans.com/Goals-matter-in-the-fight-to-improve-international-health/14518.htmlMon, 10 May 2010 11:56:21 GMTSara Libby Setting goals is a common undertaking for individuals, groups, companies, etc. to make inroads as to what can be accomplished in the future. But when it comes to goals as lofty and seemingly insurmountable as eliminating malaria, fighting AIDS and bettering the health of children around the globe, some people take the view that international health goals are unreasonable, or promise too much. A new report from the World Health Organization puts that mindset to rest; it found that health goals an Read Full Article ]]> Setting goals is a common undertaking for individuals, groups, companies, etc. to make inroads as to what can be accomplished in the future. But when it comes to goals as lofty and seemingly insurmountable as eliminating malaria, fighting AIDS and bettering the health of children around the globe, some people take the view that international health goals are unreasonable, or promise too much. A new report from the World Health Organization puts that mindset to rest; it found that health goals and targets are really delivering results by energizing politicians and political bodies to work toward solutions.The report is based on the Millennium Development Goals, which, according to the WHO, "are eight goals that all 191 UN member states have agreed to try to achieve by the year 2015. The United Nations Millennium Declaration, signed in September 2000 commits world leaders to combat poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, environmental degradation, and discrimination against women." The 2010 World Health Statistics annual report found that the goals appear to have set results in motion, with international health successes such as helping "the percentage of underweight children drop from 25 percent in 1990 to 16 percent in 2010, HIV infections fall 16 percent between 2001 and 2008 and upped the percentage of the world's population with access to safe water to around 87 percent," according to Reuters.Of course, though the successes are cause for hope and celebration, the report also found areas that still require urgent and consistent attention. Non-communicable diseases and injuries accounted for 33 million deaths in developing nations in 2004 and will be responsible for a growing proportion of total deaths in the future. The WHO also warns that while many nations are making progress across the board in regard to health goals, "others are falling behind. Often the countries making the least progress are those affected by high levels of HIV/AIDS, economic hardship or conflict."Many of the targeted international health goals for 2015, such as halving the number of people without access to safe drinking water, reducing malaria and improving child nutrition are on track to be fulfilled. But other goals, notably improving maternal health, aren't faring well. According to the report, "Recent academic estimates suggest that maternal mortality has fallen since 1990 though at a pace well short of the annual 5.5% reduction needed to achieve the MDG targets. ...From 2000 to 2008 fewer than half of all pregnant women made the WHO-recommended minimum of four antenatal visits. While the global proportion of births attended by a skilled health worker has increased, in the WHO regions of Africa and South-East Asia fewer than half of all births had skilled assistance." While not every international health target that officials set gets fulfilled, these numbers prove that they're establishing and striving for.Photo credit: World Health Organization]]>http://www.justmeans.com/Just-in-time-for-Mother-s-Day--a-slew-of-mom-related-health-studies/14314.htmlThu, 06 May 2010 19:30:25 GMTSara Libby Researchers must have Mother's Day on the brain, because this week a seeming flood of new reports and studies relating to mothers and health has been released, on everything from birth control, mothers' ages and different parenting techniques' effects on children's growth.One study on moms released by the Pew Research Center found that mothers in the United States are increasingly older, better educated and single. Finding that "the demography of motherhood in the United States has shifted strik Read Full Article ]]> Researchers must have Mother's Day on the brain, because this week a seeming flood of new reports and studies relating to mothers and health has been released, on everything from birth control, mothers' ages and different parenting techniques' effects on children's growth.One study on moms released by the Pew Research Center found that mothers in the United States are increasingly older, better educated and single. Finding that "the demography of motherhood in the United States has shifted strikingly in the past two decades," the report says that "The higher share of college-educated mothers stems both from their rising birth rates and from women's increasing educational attainment." Part of this can be attributed to shifting attitudes about unmarried motherhood, which no longer carries the stigma it once did.A separate study, this one headed by researchers at Brazil's Federal University of Pelotas and published in the Journal of Pediatrics, found that postpartum depression in mothers does not seem to affect a newborn's growth and development, in contrast with widely held beliefs. Though they found postpartum depression to be extremely high in the sampling of mothers they studied - about 30 percent - they found that the condition didn't necessarily impact the children's growth rates and weight gain.Yet another study, from the University of Montreal, links television viewing among toddlers with poor health and bad behavior. The study of Canadian children noted their television habits from ages 2 to 5; then assessed those kids' health and academic performance once they reached fourth grade. Those who watched more than two hours of TV a day performed poorer in math and participated less in class. They were also more likely to consume junk food.Finally, experts are also warning pregnant women of yet another reason to refrain from drinking while expecting. In addition to numerous health risks, like Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, this study finds that alcohol consumption might be tied to a rare form of leukemia in children. French researchers looked at the ties between alcohol consumption among pregnant women and two rare cancers: acute myeloid leukemia and acute lymphoblastic leukemia. According to BusinessWeek, "Drinking during pregnancy boosted the risk only for acute myeloid leukemia, the researchers found. No greater impact was found during any stage of pregnancy, but the risk increased with the amount of alcohol consumed."That's a lot for mothers or potential mothers to keep in mind. But, raising healthy children is a pretty worthy pursuit if ever there was one. So here's to healthy, and health-conscious moms.Photo credit: Myles Grant]]>http://www.justmeans.com/Australia-has-an-easier-go-of-health-reform/14057.htmlSun, 02 May 2010 22:19:20 GMTSara Libby He's the leader of a large industrial country who was swept into office after promising to reform the nation's health care system. And just recently, he did it; over the objections of a bloc of conservative state leaders. He's not Barack Obama. He's Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd. And he's now staking his re-election campaign on having achieved largely what he set out to do with regard to fixing the country's hospital system.Australia already had a more nationalized system, in which taxp Read Full Article ]]> He's the leader of a large industrial country who was swept into office after promising to reform the nation's health care system. And just recently, he did it; over the objections of a bloc of conservative state leaders. He's not Barack Obama. He's Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd. And he's now staking his re-election campaign on having achieved largely what he set out to do with regard to fixing the country's hospital system.Australia already had a more nationalized system, in which taxpayers fund health care by paying a levy, and receiving doctors' care and access to state hospitals in return. But lately, Australians were growing increasingly concerned that health care costs were outstripping government funding, and they were, in turn, paying more for less. Rudd's solution: The central government will assume control of funding from the state's, and will also take a large chunk of the consumption tax that is typically reserved for states. The money will be put directly into the hospital system.Though it's not quite as drastic an overhaul as the legislation recently passed here in the United States, it's the most radical change to Australia's system in decades. Naturally, there were opponents who felt that the states, not the central government, should be the ones determining how to spend tax dollars. It's a concern that's often echoed here at home.And, also similar to the U.S. debate, there are those who think the reform efforts don't go far enough; one Australian newspaper said the government solution amounted to little more than "some fancy funding footwork between federal and state governments," when officials should also be concerned with overhauling the health information technology system in order to ensure efficiency and eliminate errors, thereby reducing costs even further. Reports The Australian: "Demand is growing as health insurers realise prevention, education and supported lifestyle changes make a huge difference to the financial bottom line. Last year, HCF signed a $100 million five-year deal with Healthways Australia for just this reason: HCF's 1.3 million members can log on to a My Health Guardian account to access trained health coaches such as dieticians, personal trainers and psychologists for individual advice."Australia also faces an increasingly aging population, which will inevitably drive up the cost of health care. While there might still be more to do: health IT upgrades, Medicare reform, etc., Rudd's actions appear as if they could inject much-needed funds into its hospital system.And while Rudd faces an opposition Senate and was forced to make compromises with conservative leaders in order to get the plan passed, the relative ease with which the entire thing took place only amplifies how nasty and mean-spirited the American fight over health care really was.Photo credit: Australian government]]>http://www.justmeans.com/Huge-Los-Angeles-free-clinic-provides-free-health-care-to-the-needy/13673.htmlTue, 27 Apr 2010 16:32:56 GMTSara Libby For the second time in eight months, a mobile health clinic in Los Angeles has demonstrated the enormous need for access to affordable medical care. Back in August 2009, as health care town hall debates were making headlines for being populated by people comparing President Obama to Hitler, the Remote Area Medical Foundation set up shop at the Forum, a sports arena in Inglewood, Calif. For eight days, the clinic treated the uninsured and underinsured - more than 6,000 people in all - providing h Read Full Article ]]> For the second time in eight months, a mobile health clinic in Los Angeles has demonstrated the enormous need for access to affordable medical care. Back in August 2009, as health care town hall debates were making headlines for being populated by people comparing President Obama to Hitler, the Remote Area Medical Foundation set up shop at the Forum, a sports arena in Inglewood, Calif. For eight days, the clinic treated the uninsured and underinsured - more than 6,000 people in all - providing health screenings, teeth cleanings and more. Ultimately, though, many people were turned away because there weren't enough volunteers to handle the intense demand for services.This time around, the clinic returned to Los Angeles' Sports Arena, near downtown. Organizers tried to prepare for the crush of people by offering wristbands beforehand. People who didn't obtain a wristband in advance were allowed to return at a later time to receive services. The clinic is being offered for a full week, and is open 12 hours a day, 6 to 6. Almost 5,600 people lined up to receive wristbands Sunday, many waiting long hours in the dark and cold, some overnight, for an appointment to receive treatment. On Monday, the clinic's first full day in operation, it saw 1,200 patients.Remote Area Medical promoted the event as "the largest of its kind ever." In addition to its work in Los Angeles, it has provided free clinics at locales around the world. For the L.A. clinic, the group emphasized the community, saying "In this time of urgent healthcare challenge, it is Los Angeles coming together to help its own. Medical and non-medical personnel are volunteering their time; supplies and equipment are being donated; local agencies and organizations are generously providing their resources." Indeed, more than 70 dentists alone volunteered for this month's go-round, many working long shifts in the neighborhood of 15 hours.Though Congress finally pushed through a health care reform package; many of the provisions in that bill don't take effect for years, and many of the services people sought at the clinic - such as eye care and dental care - still might not be available to everyone who needs them. Clinics like these are eye-opening in that they show some of the best and worst aspects of our society all at once: They spotlight the volunteers who take time out of their lives to use their skills for good and help care for people in their communities; and they remind us of the political gridlock and divisiveness that helped our system break down to such a degree that it fostered such overwhelming need in the first place.Photo credit: Remote Area Medical]]>http://www.justmeans.com/FDA-could-put-legal-limits-on-salt-consumption/13225.htmlTue, 20 Apr 2010 16:53:22 GMTSara Libby Over the last year, seemingly a barrage of study after study after study has examined the negative health effects of high sodium intake. In January, a study by researchers at Stanford, Columbia and UC San Francisco found that even small reductions in one's daily salt intake can improve health dramatically, by lessening the risk of heart disease, stroke and high blood pressure. The same study found that a national program to reduce salt consumption could save billions in national medical costs, a Read Full Article ]]> Over the last year, seemingly a barrage of study after study after study has examined the negative health effects of high sodium intake. In January, a study by researchers at Stanford, Columbia and UC San Francisco found that even small reductions in one's daily salt intake can improve health dramatically, by lessening the risk of heart disease, stroke and high blood pressure. The same study found that a national program to reduce salt consumption could save billions in national medical costs, as much as $24 billion, researchers estimated. Studies emphasizing salt's health risks might encourage some individuals to wean themselves off of salt; but ultimately, reducing the nation's salt intake is impossible without the cooperation of the companies and establishments that create food to begin with.Enter the Food and Drug Administration. On the heels of the Stanford study, the FDA announced that it plans to launch an initiative beginning this year that would cut the amount of salt consumed by American citizens, a plan that could eventually result in legal limits being imposed on the amount of salt in certain food products. The FDA said it would work in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture, which regulates meat and poultry. According to the Washington Post, "Working with food manufacturers, the government would set limits for salt in these categories, designed to gradually ratchet down sodium consumption. The changes would be calibrated so that consumers barely notice the modification." Some food companies already offer lower-sodium versions of certain products. But so far, the government has implored individuals to restrict their own salt consumption; but this move would mark the first time it has acknowledged those efforts might not be enough.The Post reports that the FDA would likely place any legal restrictions open to a public comment period. Some places, like New York City, have already made moves to regulate salt. According to the Wall Street Journal, this year the "New York City Health Department said it would encourage packaged food makers and restaurants to cut salt by 25% over five years."I have to admit, while I shrug off other laws decried as "nanny" measures regulating things like smoking and tanning, laws limiting salt sure do scare me. Many journalists resort to vices like alcohol or tobacco, but I've always strayed from those. I do, however, consume an enormous amount of salt. I've been known to salt Saltine crackers, for example. While I don't doubt reducing my salt intake would improve my health, I think I'd certainly need some sort of salt-withdrawal coping mechanism. Can the FDA get me a salt patch?Photo credit: TheGiantVermin]]>http://www.justmeans.com/Insurance-companies-invest-in-unhealthy-eating/13009.htmlSun, 18 Apr 2010 20:37:50 GMTSara Libby Americans are better-informed than every about the health risks posed by eating unhealthful food, particularly fast food. There are documentaries like "Super Size Me," and "Food Inc.;" TV shows like "Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution," where the British superstar chef tries to help families avoid eating from fast food restaurants and to cook healthy meals at home; efforts to require calorie and other nutritional info on food packaging and fast food menus; and programs like Michelle Obama's Let's Mo Read Full Article ]]> Americans are better-informed than every about the health risks posed by eating unhealthful food, particularly fast food. There are documentaries like "Super Size Me," and "Food Inc.;" TV shows like "Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution," where the British superstar chef tries to help families avoid eating from fast food restaurants and to cook healthy meals at home; efforts to require calorie and other nutritional info on food packaging and fast food menus; and programs like Michelle Obama's Let's Move initiative, aimed at eradicating childhood obesity. Then there was the public revulsion at the recently unveiled KFC sandwich called the Double Down, which features bacon, cheese, and two pieces of fried chicken acting as bread. The fact that so many people recoiled at such an excessively unhealthy product shows that people have gotten the message about how fast food affects people's bodies.With all of these programs aimed at spreading the word about eating healthy, you'd think it would be impossible to avoid the message. But one group has managed to turn a deaf ear on the dangers of frequent fast-food meals: health insurance companies. A new study reveals that some of the nation's largest providers of health, life and disability insurance owned close to $2 billion in stock in the biggest fast-food companies, like McDonad's, Burger King and Yum! Brands, which owns Taco Bell and KFC, researchers at Harvard Medical School determined. Though some of the companies disputed the findings, the logic is clear: Since people who eat fast-food meals often are more likely to gain weight, become obese, and develop diabetes, the companies stand to profit from both their investments in the fast-food restaurants and in the higher premiums they can charge to people in poor health. The revelation mirrors the outcome of a similar study that found insurers also hold large investments in tobacco companies."They can charge you more for life insurance if you have these negative health outcomes that people have as a result of eating fast food," said J. Wesley Boyd, the senior author of the study. Boyd did emphasize, however, that fast-food consumption can be fine for one's health in moderation.It certainly offers further proof - as if we needed any - that health insurance companies ultimately care most about their bottom line, and not about the lives and welfare of the people they take money from.Photo credit: KFC]]>http://www.justmeans.com/Study-sees-link-between-teen-girls--drinking--breast-cancer/12958.htmlSat, 17 Apr 2010 20:18:43 GMTSara Libby For teenage girls, alcohol consumption can pose a number of risks: it impairs your judgment, it can land you in the hospital if you consume too much; and it can create enormous hazards for you and others should you decide to get behind the wheel of a vehicle. But now health officials suggest that another risk might also be lurking for teenage girls who drink frequently: It can lead to breast disease that onsets in girls' 20s, or to breast cancer later in life.Researchers saw a huge increase in h Read Full Article ]]> For teenage girls, alcohol consumption can pose a number of risks: it impairs your judgment, it can land you in the hospital if you consume too much; and it can create enormous hazards for you and others should you decide to get behind the wheel of a vehicle. But now health officials suggest that another risk might also be lurking for teenage girls who drink frequently: It can lead to breast disease that onsets in girls' 20s, or to breast cancer later in life.Researchers saw a huge increase in how likely girls were to develop benign breast disease (BBD) based on whether they drank often; girls who drank every day or close to every day were five times more likely to develop BBD than those who drank only once a week or less. In addition to putting oneself at risk for BBD, frequent drinking also can mean an increased risk for breast cancer, since BBD boosts one's breast cancer risk. The Harvard Medical School study was published in the journal Pediatrics this month. Catherine Berkey, one of the study's co-authors, said the project was the first in which alcohol data were collected during adolescence, with continued follow-up in the females as they develop disease.Nearly 7,000 girls started a survey between ages 9 and 15, and reported their alcohol consumption and other behaviors in a follow-up study between ages 16 and 23; another survey done between ages 18 to 27 included questions on breast disease. According to USA Today, "Teen years are a critical time for potential cancer-producing exposures, [Berkey] said, because the mammary glands are undergoing rapid growth during that period. Berkey said she suspects the link is due to alcohol increasing total estrogen levels, raising the likelihood of benign breast disease."It's not the first time researchers have found indicators for breast cancer among teenagers or children. Another recent study found that being thin during childhood can also be a risk factor. A Swedish study found that "the thinner a woman thought she was at age 7, the higher the risk for breast cancer later in life," according to CBS News. It also seems to prove that breast cancer is an incredibly complex disease; and not one health factor or trigger is responsible for its development. Doctors stress that, as with a bevy of diseases, the best way to protect oneself from developing breast cancer is to maintain a healthy weight through exercise and a sensible diet.Photo credit:Gonzalo Rivero]]>http://www.justmeans.com/Is-progress-being-made-on-maternal-mortality/12799.htmlThu, 15 Apr 2010 00:12:40 GMTSara Libby Earlier this week, headlines were gleefully reporting the findings from the medical journal the Lancet that touted a big drop in worldwide deaths of mothers during childbirth. Now, those findings are being considered more carefully, since they seem to conflict with a new, separate United Nations report that suggests maternal deaths remain high, possibly as high as 500,000 year. The Lancet's editor even charged that the U.N. pressured the medical journal to delay announcing its findings, and accu Read Full Article ]]> Earlier this week, headlines were gleefully reporting the findings from the medical journal the Lancet that touted a big drop in worldwide deaths of mothers during childbirth. Now, those findings are being considered more carefully, since they seem to conflict with a new, separate United Nations report that suggests maternal deaths remain high, possibly as high as 500,000 year. The Lancet's editor even charged that the U.N. pressured the medical journal to delay announcing its findings, and accused the group of playing politics: ""Activists perceive a lower maternal mortality figure as actually diluting their message. Advocacy can sometimes get in the way of science," Richard Horton told the Associated Press.Here's what the Lancet reported, after assessing maternal mortality levels and trends from 181 countries: "During 19902008, rates of yearly decline in the MMR varied between countries, from 88% (87141) in the Maldives to an increase of 55% (5256) in Zimbabwe. More than 50% of all maternal deaths were in only six countries in 2008 (India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo). In the absence of HIV, there would have been 281500 (243900327900) maternal deaths worldwide in 2008."The report by the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health, a global alliance hosted by the World Health Organization paints a much bleaker picture: "Despite significant advances over the past decades, the detailed analysis shows that an estimated 350,00 to 500,000 women still die in childbirth each year; some 3.6 million newborns fail to survive the first month, and an additional 5.2 million children die before the age of five."It's important to understand where we're actually at on this issue, since maternal health and wellness is a crucial indicator of an overall population's wellbeing, and a reflection of how a given society treats its women. Factors like prenatal care and disease prevention play a large role in preventing complications at birth; and a mother's income and access to education are also shown to impact her and the baby's risk of dying during childbirth.The Associated Press points out that even if maternal deaths are indeed on the decline, that statistic can mean more than one might think: "In the world of public health, good news can paradoxically be bad news. The more people who are dying, the more money U.N. officials can raise, making some experts less keen to acknowledge that a problem is not as bad as they once thought."The U.N. report comes as part of an initiative called Countdown to 2015, a global movement created five years ago to measure progress in reducing mother and infant deaths, two of the Millennium Development Goals set by 189 member nations of the United Nations General Assembly in 2000.. "Because we know what causes these deaths and what would prevent them, major progress is possible," says Jennifer Bryce, a child health researcher at Johns Hopkins University and a member of the Countdown group. "The Countdown analysis provides a road map, helping countries focus on their own data and take action to meet their specific needs." Photo credit: U.S. Navy]]>http://www.justmeans.com/Navy-moves-to-ban-smoking-on-submarines/12544.htmlSat, 10 Apr 2010 21:30:27 GMTSara Libby Earlier this week I noted that some health officials are unsure how effective outdoor smoking bans may be: Since few studies have examined how much outside air dilutes cigarette smoke, it's not clear how much such bans actually protect people's health. The benefits of indoor smoking bans, however, have been well-documented. A 2010 study in the Oxford Journal of Nicotine and Tobacco Research determined: "Indoor smoking bans are an effective means of improving indoor and outdoor air quality in pub Read Full Article ]]> Earlier this week I noted that some health officials are unsure how effective outdoor smoking bans may be: Since few studies have examined how much outside air dilutes cigarette smoke, it's not clear how much such bans actually protect people's health. The benefits of indoor smoking bans, however, have been well-documented. A 2010 study in the Oxford Journal of Nicotine and Tobacco Research determined: "Indoor smoking bans are an effective means of improving indoor and outdoor air quality in pubs and bars, although the air quality of smoke-free indoor areas may be compromised by smoking in adjacent outdoor areas." Similarly, according to The Nation's Health, " An Institute of Medicine report released in October concluded that indoor smoking bans reduce heart attack risk among both smokers and nonsmokers. Also, a study published in the Oct. 6 issue of Circulation found a drop in heart attack hospital admission rates in areas with indoor smoking bans, with such health benefits growing over time."Therefore, it's welcome news that the U.S. Navy has moved to ban smoking below the decks on its submarines, beginning Dec. 31. The Navy initiated the ban based on similar findings to other indoor smoking bans: Secondhand smoke negatively affects the health those who choose not to smoke. It commissioned a study, following a 2006 surgeon general's report on the negative effects of smoking, that found its sailors who didn't smoke were indeed showing the medical effects of secondhand smoke exposure. "This policy was initiated for the health of the sailors who choose not to smoke," Lt. Commander Mark Jones, spokesman for the Commander Naval Submarine Forces in Norfolk, Virginia, told CNN. "It is unfair for them to be exposed to the unhealthy side effects of secondhand smoke." Jones said a recent Navy poll found that about 30-40 percent of Navy sailors on submarine duty are smokers.Many people reacted negatively toward the news, saying the smoking ban would likely be hard for sailors who use cigarettes as a stress-reliever, and who rely on them for comfort after a hard day at sea - not to mention that cigarettes are a big part of the iconic image Americans associate with military men. But the military, like any other workplace, has an obligation to protect its employees from health risks, and exposure to cigarette smoke is certainly that. It seems only logical that if people are forbidden from smoking on planes - enclosed vehicles that go up in the air - that they'd also be forbidden from smoking in enclosed vehicles that go underwater.Photo credit: U.S. Navy]]>http://www.justmeans.com/After-a-blip--teen-pregnancy-is-back-on-the-decline/12490.htmlFri, 09 Apr 2010 16:53:54 GMTSara Libby Only a couple of months ago, a Guttmacher Institute report for the period 2006-2007 indicated that teen pregnancy was on the rise; an increase that troubled health experts because those numbers had been going down for more than a decade. Now, new figures released by the National Center for Health Statistics for 2007-2008 show that the previous year might have just been an outlier, because birth rates seem to be back on their way down.Among the reports key findings:The 2008 preliminary estimate o Read Full Article ]]> Only a couple of months ago, a Guttmacher Institute report for the period 2006-2007 indicated that teen pregnancy was on the rise; an increase that troubled health experts because those numbers had been going down for more than a decade. Now, new figures released by the National Center for Health Statistics for 2007-2008 show that the previous year might have just been an outlier, because birth rates seem to be back on their way down.Among the reports key findings:The 2008 preliminary estimate of births for the United States was 4,251,095, nearly 2 percent less than the record number of births ever registered in 2007.The 2008 preliminary crude birth rate (CBR) was 14.0 births per 1,000 total population, 2 percent less than the rate in 2007.The birth rate for U.S. teenagers dropped 2 percent in 2008 according to preliminary data. The decline reverses two consecutive years of increase that interrupted the 34 percent decline in teenage childbearing from 1991 to 2005.The preliminary birth rate for women aged 30-34 years in 2008 was 99.3 births per 1,000 women, a drop of less than 1 percent compared to 2007 (99.9). The number of births to women aged 30-34 years declined less than 1 percent in 2008. The rate for women aged 35-39 years also declined 1 percent in 2008, to 46.9 births per 1,000, from 47.5 in 2007.The report also shows that births among Hispanic teens dropped to historic lows. Interestingly, the birth rate increased only for one age group: women over 40, and the number went up by 4 percent among women 40-44, the highest rate increase since 1967. This is attributed to new technologies that allow women to conceive later in life.Brady Hamilton, lead author on the study and researcher for the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, said,"This increase is part of a general trend that we've seen over the past few decades. A rise in reproductive technology gives women more options and morewomen are choosing to postpone childbirthor have a second or third child later in life."Many health officials suggested that the overall decline in birth rates was a result of the weakened economy:"The economy may have had some role,'' Stephanie J. Ventura of the National Center for Health Statistics told the Washington Post. "The economic downturn has been so severe that many people may be rethinking a lot of things, including having children.'' But since the birth rate among teens was demonstrably lower - and most teen pregnancies are unplanned - it's likely that other factors were also responsible for the numbers shift. Other health experts caution against looking too deeply into one- or two-year trends, which they say don't indicate much other than the fact that the numbers are now bouncing around instead of steadily declining.Photo credit: dtoli051]]>http://www.justmeans.com/Do-outdoor-smoking-bans-protect-public-health/12369.htmlWed, 07 Apr 2010 19:35:53 GMTSara Libby Secondhand smoke's harmful health effects are well-documented. According to Web MD, "A 2006 surgeon general's report confirmed that secondhand smoking (also called involuntary or passive smoking) can kill, and it concluded that there is no amount of exposure to secondhand smoke that is safe. The more secondhand smoke you breathe in, the more your health risks increase. ... Secondhand smoke can have a number of serious health effects on nonsmokers, particularly cancer and heart disease." It's no Read Full Article ]]> Secondhand smoke's harmful health effects are well-documented. According to Web MD, "A 2006 surgeon general's report confirmed that secondhand smoking (also called involuntary or passive smoking) can kill, and it concluded that there is no amount of exposure to secondhand smoke that is safe. The more secondhand smoke you breathe in, the more your health risks increase. ... Secondhand smoke can have a number of serious health effects on nonsmokers, particularly cancer and heart disease." It's no wonder, then, that government agencies would make a push toward regulating secondhand smoke by instituting bans on smoking in places like bars, hotels, public transportation, and other enclosed areas where people would otherwise be forced into being exposed to others' cigarette smoke. If you've ever seen an episode of "Man Men," you'll realize just how prevalent smoking used to be in public places we'd never tolerate it today, including office buildings and on airplanes.And indeed, the payoff of such bans has already been observed. Reports the Los Angeles Times: "Studies on the effects of smoking bans have underscored the risks of secondhand smoke as hazardous to public health. Communities that prohibit smoking in places such as restaurants and workplaces have consistently observed a decreased rate of heart attacks." Less clear, however, are the benefits of bans on smoking in outdoor spaces, where it's uncertain whether the air dilutes the smoke to a point where it's less harmful than indoors.Some communities and cities have instituted bans on smoking in public places like bus stops, soccer fields, outdoor cafes and parks. California has traditionally been a pioneer in creating and enforcing such measures, and the effort has spread throughout the country. Back in 2006, the city of Calabasas, Calif. banned smoking in all public places, indoor or outdoor. Since then, state lawmakers just this month have also moved to ban smoking on all public beaches and in state parks, a move the L.A. Times called "one of the nation's most far-reaching regulations of tobacco use." In addition to preventing exposure to harmful secondhand smoke, legislators reason it will also eliminate a good deal of littering, and hopefully will help prevent fires started by cigarette butts.So far, it's unclear whether Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will sign the bill.Still, the verdict is at least partially out on how effective outdoor smoking bans are at protecting health. Notes the Times: "No one has studied the effect of outdoor no-smoking policies. However, the California EPA report includes outdoor measurements of secondhand smoke, and in some settings, such as designated smoking areas or out in front of a bar, the levels were comparable to indoor data."Photo credit:Ed Yourdon]]>http://www.justmeans.com/Should-healthy-people-take-cholesterol-drugs/12182.htmlSat, 03 Apr 2010 17:01:54 GMTSara Libby As I was walking through my neighborhood yesterday, I noticed a copy of Parade magazine, opened to a page with a blaring headline that read "The Rise of Hypochondria." Though the article never explains why it uses the term "rise" or that there is one going on causing an increase in people convinced they are ill, it explains the affliction: "For tens of thousands of Americans who suffer from hypochondria, every headache is a brain tumor and a simple cold spells cancer." That was enough to remind Read Full Article ]]> As I was walking through my neighborhood yesterday, I noticed a copy of Parade magazine, opened to a page with a blaring headline that read "The Rise of Hypochondria." Though the article never explains why it uses the term "rise" or that there is one going on causing an increase in people convinced they are ill, it explains the affliction: "For tens of thousands of Americans who suffer from hypochondria, every headache is a brain tumor and a simple cold spells cancer." That was enough to remind me of the recent news that the maker of a cholesterol-reducing drug, Crestor, recently received the government's green light to begin marketing and selling the drug to completely healthy people as a preventative measure.Now, don't get me wrong. Preventative care is an extremely important issue, and thankfully, many preventative care issues were included in the recent health care bill. The logic is simple: You can pay a little to ward off disease or illness before it happens (or catch it early enough to treat), or you can pay a lot later on down the road. But convincing people who don't have cholesterol problems to take a cholesterol drug elevates the notion of preventative medicine to a new possibly dangerous realm. Web MD says that high cholesterol can lead to numerous health issues: "When too much cholesterol is present, plaque (a thick, hard deposit) may form in the body's arteries narrowing the space for blood to flow to the heart. Over time, this buildup causes atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries) which can lead to heart disease. When not enough oxygen-carrying blood reaches the heart chest pain called angina can result. If the blood supply to a portion of the heart is completely cut off by total blockage of a coronary artery, the result is a heart attack."But some doctors believe that having healthy people take cholesterol medicine could present its own health risks. According to the New York Times, "Statins have been credited with saving thousands of lives every year with relatively few side effects, and some medical experts endorse the drug's broader use. But for healthy people who would take statins largely as prevention which would be the case for the new category of Crestor patients other experts suggest the benefits may not outweigh any side effects.Among the risks raising new concerns, recently published evidence indicates that statins could raise a person's risk of developing Type 2 diabetes by 9 percent."Since cholesterol (and numerous other health issues) can also be managed with a sensible diet and exercise, it seems much wiser health-wise and financially not to take complex medications until you actually have a need for them.Photo credit:Pia von Ltzau]]>http://www.justmeans.com/Gulf-War-veterans-get-a-health-care-boost/12156.htmlFri, 02 Apr 2010 17:44:32 GMTSara Libby It's long been noted that for many military veterans, problems often don't end just because a soldier has returned from combat. Coming home can be a difficult readjustment, and if he or she is facing health problems, that can only exacerbate the transition. So it's welcome news that the Department of Veterans Affairs is now trying to fill certain gaps in health services it provides to veterans, and a Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses Task Force has outlines many ways to address better care for vetera Read Full Article ]]> It's long been noted that for many military veterans, problems often don't end just because a soldier has returned from combat. Coming home can be a difficult readjustment, and if he or she is facing health problems, that can only exacerbate the transition. So it's welcome news that the Department of Veterans Affairs is now trying to fill certain gaps in health services it provides to veterans, and a Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses Task Force has outlines many ways to address better care for veterans; some of those include improved data-sharing between veterans and the government, so that the Defense Department can communicate with veterans about potentially hazardous exposures, and keep track of their long-term health.One of the big recommendations of the task force that is being adopted by the VA is addressing, diagnosing and treating nine infectious diseases presumed to be linked with service in the Gulf War (therefore called Gulf War Illnesses). According to the Department of Defense, "That ruling, once adopted, will impact veterans who deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. It will relieve those suffering from the designated diseases from the burden of proving their ailments are linked to service in the Persian Gulf or Afghanistan to receive VA health care and disability payments.The nine diseases are: brucellosis, Campylobacter jejuni, Coxiella burnetii (Q fever), malaria, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, nontyphoidal Salmonella, Shigella, visceral leishmaniasis (kala-azar) and West Nile virus." The approach is similar to the handling of diseases associated with exposure to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War.Though the VA has suffered some high-profile PR setbacks in the past few years, most notably the scandal involving Walter Reed Medical Center and patient neglect, it remains a pinnacle of government-run health care, and many have suggested throughout the course of the contentious health care reform battle that the VA is a perfect model for what reform should look like. Among other innovations, the VA adopted electronic medical records, a system that helps reduce medical errors, helps keep costs down, and improves efficiency. Opening access to care for Gulf War Illnesses is another important step toward providing improved and effective care for military veterans - the kind of care the hopefully will one day be available to all Americans. But the Gulf isn't the only place that U.S. soldiers serve, and become exposed to hazardous chemicals and diseases that could impact their health. The government should continue working toward identifying ways to help all returning soldiers, and ensuring they're cared for long after they return home safely.Photo credit: Department of Defense]]>http://www.justmeans.com/Congress-and-celebs-alike-are-trying-to-tackle-healthy-lunches/12002.htmlWed, 31 Mar 2010 05:16:44 GMTSara Libby Though the health care reform bill has taken up a lot of ink (and pixels) in the past few weeks, a close runner-up for the most talked-about health issue has got to be child nutrition and school lunches. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 is headed to a final Senate vote, after passing through the Senate Agricultural Committee recently. It provides $4.5 billion to child nutrition programs over the next 10 years, and also includes health and safety provisions aimed at minimizing contaminat Read Full Article ]]> Though the health care reform bill has taken up a lot of ink (and pixels) in the past few weeks, a close runner-up for the most talked-about health issue has got to be child nutrition and school lunches. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 is headed to a final Senate vote, after passing through the Senate Agricultural Committee recently. It provides $4.5 billion to child nutrition programs over the next 10 years, and also includes health and safety provisions aimed at minimizing contamination. The bill is the most recent iteration of the Child Nutrition Act, which comes up for a funding vote every five years, and which funds school lunch programs across the country, as well as other supplemental nutrition programs for needy kids and families.While most average Americans might not be aware of the legislation regarding school lunches, they are likely to have had the issue on the brain thanks to a new TV show tackling the subject that is making waves, "Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution" on ABC, starring British celebrity chef Jamie Oliver, who is making it his personal crusade to improve the diets of American schoolchildren, particularly their diets during the school day. But it's proving to be a tough task - Oliver has so far met opposition from cafeteria workers, skeptical school administrators, and most of all, the kids themselves, who tend to dig in their heels and resist any efforts to take away their strawberry milk and chicken nuggets. In a particularly appalling scene, a classroom full of kids couldn't even name simple pieces of produce like tomatoes and potatoes when they were held up right in front of them.Like it or not, though, kids might soon be forced to accept the tactics that Oliver is trying to introduce. According to the Delphos Herald, "The Healthy School Meals Act of 2010 under consideration in the House could amend the program to recommend offering more plant-based options. The act could also remove restrictions on providing non-dairy milk alternatives because some students are lactose intolerant, have allergies or choose not to drink milk for other reasons."The New York Times recently reported that some schools have begun switching the order of recess and lunch - allowing kids to run around and play outside before eating, allowing them to work up an appetite, and therefore become more receptive to foods they might not otherwise try. Though it's an intriguing - and cost-effective - approach, the Times reports that "A 2006 study in The Journal of Childhood Nutrition & Management reported that fewer than 5 percent of the nation's elementary schools were scheduling recess before lunch."Photo credit: Let'sMove.gov]]>http://www.justmeans.com/Tanning-Beds-Are-Feeling-the-Heat-from-Health-Officials/11756.htmlSat, 27 Mar 2010 18:31:20 GMTSara Libby An FDA advisory panel this week recommended that children and teens should be kept from using tanning beds, or at least should have parents sign a consent form informing them of the health risks involved. According to Web MD, "The 16-member panel seemed likely to advise the FDA to list tanning beds as Class 2 devices, which require special assurances, such as labeling requirements or mandatory performance standards, that they will not cause harm. Class 2 devices include X-ray machines and powere Read Full Article ]]> An FDA advisory panel this week recommended that children and teens should be kept from using tanning beds, or at least should have parents sign a consent form informing them of the health risks involved. According to Web MD, "The 16-member panel seemed likely to advise the FDA to list tanning beds as Class 2 devices, which require special assurances, such as labeling requirements or mandatory performance standards, that they will not cause harm. Class 2 devices include X-ray machines and powered wheelchairs."The move comes after the World Health Organization also issued a stern rebuke of tanning beds, moving the devices into its highest cancer-risk category, which comes with the lovely-sounding label "carcinogenic to humans." The organization said there was overwhelming evidence linking tanning beds' UV rays to the deadly skin cancer melanoma. The WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer conducted research in 2006, " finding the use of tanning beds before age 30 to be associated with a 75% increase in melanoma risk. A separate study reported last July by researchers from the National Institutes of Health found that melanoma rates among young women in the United States almost tripled between 1973 and 2004," according to Web MD. The American Academy of Dermatology estimates that of the 30 million Americans who hit tanning beds each year, about 2.3 million are teenagers.The new FDA recommendations could produce changes in laws - in fact, some health officials think teens should be banned from tanning altogether, in the same way people aren't allowed to smoke until they turn 18. Right now, tanning salons and other gyms, spas, etc. that provide tanning are so easy to come by that a San Diego State study even found that in certain areas, tanning is easier to come by than a Starbucks. In addition to a crackdown from the FDA, the new health care overhaul that passed recently also includes provisions discouraging tanning. As CNN explains, "To help fund the $940 billion health care overhaul, a 10% tax on individuals receiving indoor tanning services was tacked on, and the initiative is expected to generate $2.7 billion over ten years." The tax was quickly nicknamed the "Jersey Shore tax," after the MTV reality show in which the castmembers adhere to a strict regiment called "gym, tan, laundry" before hitting the clubs. Originally, the health care bill included a 5 percent tax on cosmetic surgery procedures, but was replaced with the tanning tax after heavy lobbying from the medical industry.Photo credit: Beax]]>http://www.justmeans.com/Special-deliveries--C-section-births-are-at-an-all-time-high/11629.htmlThu, 25 Mar 2010 17:20:01 GMTSara Libby If you asked me which surgical procedure took place most often in U.S. hospitals, I might guess appendix removals or something else relatively common that could be performed on either sex (though I live in Los Angeles, I assume the rest of the country isn't getting as many breast enhancements or nose jobs); but in fact, according to a new report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the most common surgical procedure is now the caesarian section. The rate of C-section births has jum Read Full Article ]]> If you asked me which surgical procedure took place most often in U.S. hospitals, I might guess appendix removals or something else relatively common that could be performed on either sex (though I live in Los Angeles, I assume the rest of the country isn't getting as many breast enhancements or nose jobs); but in fact, according to a new report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the most common surgical procedure is now the caesarian section. The rate of C-section births has jumped 53 percent since 1996, and is now done so often that one in every three babies arrives via the procedure.The fact that C-sections are happening at an all-time high, and across age and demographic groups, worries some doctors because the procedure is much more likely to harm the mother and/or the baby than traditional vaginal births. C-sections used to be a procedure that was performed only as an exception to the rule. According to ABC News, "There are reasons for women to have caesarian sections, including twins and other multiples due to fertility treatments. Another factor is the age of the mother; the averages have increased over time. Older mothers are much more likely to have the surgery in order to avoid complications." But some doctors believe mothers sometimes choose C-sections simply to avoid a long, painful labor and delivery.Though caesarian rates rose considerably across the board, the rates varied from state to state: "Rates varied considerably by state. In 2007, cesarean rates ranged from less than 25% in Alaska, Idaho, New Mexico, and Utah, to over 35% in Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, and West Virginia. Cesarean rates rose significantly in each state from 1996 to 2007. The magnitude of the increases varied. Six states (Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Nevada, Rhode Island, and Washington) had increases of over 70%. In 34 states, cesarean delivery rates increased by 50% or more."Interestingly, while the number of C-section births has jumped, so too has the number of women who choose to give birth outside of a hospital. Mothers who choose to give birth at home obviously relinquish the possibility that they will have a C-section, or that they will be given pain-relieving medication like an epidural. By giving birth at home, mothers control how much time they are allowed to spend with the newborn, a fact that no doubt makes the option more appealing.]]>http://www.justmeans.com/Health-care-reform-efforts-through-the-ages/11458.htmlTue, 23 Mar 2010 02:40:58 GMTSara Libby I'm sure my fellow health writers will all have different takes and perspectives on the landmark health care reform legislation that passed in the House late Sunday. Ano has already taken a cautious approach and reminded us that yesterday's vote was only the beginning of what will surely be a long, continuous journey toward better caring for the health and safety of our citizens. But being the resident presidential history nerd of the group, I'd like to take a moment and discuss what a monumenta Read Full Article ]]> I'm sure my fellow health writers will all have different takes and perspectives on the landmark health care reform legislation that passed in the House late Sunday. Ano has already taken a cautious approach and reminded us that yesterday's vote was only the beginning of what will surely be a long, continuous journey toward better caring for the health and safety of our citizens. But being the resident presidential history nerd of the group, I'd like to take a moment and discuss what a monumental political victory the health care bill's passage is, and perhaps the best way to do that is to revisit some past efforts by previous presidents to improve the nation's system of health care.Teddy Roosevelt: When the progressive reformer tried to sneak in for a third term under his invented "Bull Moose Party," Roosevelt included in his platform a plan to provide universal health coverage insurance to every American. Woodrow Wilson ended up winning the presidency (partly because Roosevelt's candidacy split the vote between him and incumbent William Howard Taft). Progressives in Congress tried to seize on the universal health insurance idea, but without the support of the president, it never had a shot.Franklin Roosevelt: F.D.R. undoubtedly helped push through some of the most comprehensive progressive legislation in our nation's history. That included 1935's Social Security Act, which ensured a safety net for elderly, disabled and sick Americans, and established the government's role as a public welfare agent.Harry Truman: Truman made health care his signature issue, and he paid the price with Congress. He too wanted universal health insurance for all Americans. Eventually, his handlers convinced him to limit his efforts to just the elderly. In the end, his administration won a moderate expansion of Social Security, and helped set the stage for certain health-related portions of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs.Lyndon Johnson: Medicare part A, Medicare part B and Medicaid all originated under Lyndon Johnson - programs that have been enormously influential and beneficial to those who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford health care. The government's role as a provider of health care was cemented under Johnson.Richard Nixon: Nixon, too, took up the mantle of universal coverage; and even looked like he might be on his way there with the Nixon-Kennedy Healthcare Plan of 1974. But that fell apart with the revelation of the Watergate scandal. Health care was officially on the back burner.Jimmy Carter: Though Carter expressed support for the idea of universal health care, the economic realities of the time made that notion impossible.Bill Clinton: With economic prosperity flourishing during his administration, Clinton seemed determined to pass an overhaul to the health care system. He spoke passionately about it. He enlisted his wife to create a plan. Ultimately, though, it failed. Health reform eventually disappeared from the national conversation - especially when the Lewinsky scandal overtook everything.Given that there have been so many failed attempts to enact real change to the nation's system of health coverage, it's no wonder the House erupted in cheers of "Yes we can!" when the bill secured enough votes. In addition to providing hope for millions of Americans who couldn't otherwise afford insurance, the legislation is an extraordinary political accomplishment.Photo credit: Library of Congress]]>