Jan Dyer

Research has confirmed what many people know from experience: that paid sick days can make the workplace healthier. In 1 study, researchers found universal access to paid sick days (PSD) reduced influenza in the workplace by 6%.  To drill down on the influence PSD access has on decisions to stay home from work, or to stay home with a child who has flu or influenza-like-illness, researchers from University of Pittsburgh analyzed data from the 2009 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey for 12,901 households and 12,044 employees. They chose the 2009 survey because the numbers of influenza-like-illness and influenza cases were likely to have been higher due to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.

Of the workers surveyed, 64% had access to PSD. Access was associated significantly with gender, race/ethnicity, income, education, and number of employees in the workplace. In the group of 4,911 employees who had children, 68% had PSD.

The study highlighted some subgroups that face barriers to following CDC recommendations, such as staying home for up to 24 hours after symptoms subside. Hispanics, for instance, were significantly less likely to stay home when ill, but this was not necessarily an ethnic difference, the researchers say. Rather, they suggest, it may have had more to do with job security and workplace culture. They cite a survey done during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, in which Hispanics reported fewer resources at work than non-Hispanic whites, including paid sick leave, job security, and ability to work from home.

Women tend to be the main caregivers for children. In this study, women had a higher prevalence of staying home for a child’s illness than men, even after the researchers controlled for PSD access. Yet, in a different survey women also were more likely to report for work when ill, or when a child was ill. The researchers called this “presenteeism.”

The researchers underscore the importance of PSD laws in reducing the economic burden of healthy behavior in families. They note that in 2015, 35% of employees did not have access to PSD, and those employees were usually people with low income. Only 34% of those in the lowest-income group had access to PSD, compared with 89% in the highest income groups.

Source:

Piper K, Youk A, James AE, III, Kumar S. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(2): e0170698.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0170698

Research has confirmed what many people know from experience: that paid sick days can make the workplace healthier. In 1 study, researchers found universal access to paid sick days (PSD) reduced influenza in the workplace by 6%.  To drill down on the influence PSD access has on decisions to stay home from work, or to stay home with a child who has flu or influenza-like-illness, researchers from University of Pittsburgh analyzed data from the 2009 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey for 12,901 households and 12,044 employees. They chose the 2009 survey because the numbers of influenza-like-illness and influenza cases were likely to have been higher due to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.

Of the workers surveyed, 64% had access to PSD. Access was associated significantly with gender, race/ethnicity, income, education, and number of employees in the workplace. In the group of 4,911 employees who had children, 68% had PSD.

The study highlighted some subgroups that face barriers to following CDC recommendations, such as staying home for up to 24 hours after symptoms subside. Hispanics, for instance, were significantly less likely to stay home when ill, but this was not necessarily an ethnic difference, the researchers say. Rather, they suggest, it may have had more to do with job security and workplace culture. They cite a survey done during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, in which Hispanics reported fewer resources at work than non-Hispanic whites, including paid sick leave, job security, and ability to work from home.

Women tend to be the main caregivers for children. In this study, women had a higher prevalence of staying home for a child’s illness than men, even after the researchers controlled for PSD access. Yet, in a different survey women also were more likely to report for work when ill, or when a child was ill. The researchers called this “presenteeism.”

The researchers underscore the importance of PSD laws in reducing the economic burden of healthy behavior in families. They note that in 2015, 35% of employees did not have access to PSD, and those employees were usually people with low income. Only 34% of those in the lowest-income group had access to PSD, compared with 89% in the highest income groups.

Source:

Piper K, Youk A, James AE, III, Kumar S. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(2): e0170698.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0170698

Research has confirmed what many people know from experience: that paid sick days can make the workplace healthier. In 1 study, researchers found universal access to paid sick days (PSD) reduced influenza in the workplace by 6%.  To drill down on the influence PSD access has on decisions to stay home from work, or to stay home with a child who has flu or influenza-like-illness, researchers from University of Pittsburgh analyzed data from the 2009 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey for 12,901 households and 12,044 employees. They chose the 2009 survey because the numbers of influenza-like-illness and influenza cases were likely to have been higher due to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.

Of the workers surveyed, 64% had access to PSD. Access was associated significantly with gender, race/ethnicity, income, education, and number of employees in the workplace. In the group of 4,911 employees who had children, 68% had PSD.

The study highlighted some subgroups that face barriers to following CDC recommendations, such as staying home for up to 24 hours after symptoms subside. Hispanics, for instance, were significantly less likely to stay home when ill, but this was not necessarily an ethnic difference, the researchers say. Rather, they suggest, it may have had more to do with job security and workplace culture. They cite a survey done during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, in which Hispanics reported fewer resources at work than non-Hispanic whites, including paid sick leave, job security, and ability to work from home.

Women tend to be the main caregivers for children. In this study, women had a higher prevalence of staying home for a child’s illness than men, even after the researchers controlled for PSD access. Yet, in a different survey women also were more likely to report for work when ill, or when a child was ill. The researchers called this “presenteeism.”

The researchers underscore the importance of PSD laws in reducing the economic burden of healthy behavior in families. They note that in 2015, 35% of employees did not have access to PSD, and those employees were usually people with low income. Only 34% of those in the lowest-income group had access to PSD, compared with 89% in the highest income groups.

Source:

Piper K, Youk A, James AE, III, Kumar S. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(2): e0170698.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0170698

A gel that mimics the texture and mass of the brain, developed by U.S. Army Research Laboratory scientists, may help reveal what happens to the brain during an explosion.

The researchers used pressure-sensitive nanomaterials. The fluorescence intensity of the gel increases or decreases with the amount of pressure applied. Based on how the nanoclusters fluoresce under each pressure, the researchers will be able to gauge what would happen in a “brain situation,” 1 of the researchers says in a Health.mil article. The researchers are planning to create a pressure scale to graph information about the effects of blast pressure from the changes in color.

The laboratory has a working relationship with Japanese medical researchers who are also studying the effects of blast waves. The Japanese team will test the U.S. Army’s samples with a laser-induced shockwave and share the results of that experiment with the U.S. Army.

A gel that mimics the texture and mass of the brain, developed by U.S. Army Research Laboratory scientists, may help reveal what happens to the brain during an explosion.

The researchers used pressure-sensitive nanomaterials. The fluorescence intensity of the gel increases or decreases with the amount of pressure applied. Based on how the nanoclusters fluoresce under each pressure, the researchers will be able to gauge what would happen in a “brain situation,” 1 of the researchers says in a Health.mil article. The researchers are planning to create a pressure scale to graph information about the effects of blast pressure from the changes in color.

The laboratory has a working relationship with Japanese medical researchers who are also studying the effects of blast waves. The Japanese team will test the U.S. Army’s samples with a laser-induced shockwave and share the results of that experiment with the U.S. Army.

A gel that mimics the texture and mass of the brain, developed by U.S. Army Research Laboratory scientists, may help reveal what happens to the brain during an explosion.

The researchers used pressure-sensitive nanomaterials. The fluorescence intensity of the gel increases or decreases with the amount of pressure applied. Based on how the nanoclusters fluoresce under each pressure, the researchers will be able to gauge what would happen in a “brain situation,” 1 of the researchers says in a Health.mil article. The researchers are planning to create a pressure scale to graph information about the effects of blast pressure from the changes in color.

The laboratory has a working relationship with Japanese medical researchers who are also studying the effects of blast waves. The Japanese team will test the U.S. Army’s samples with a laser-induced shockwave and share the results of that experiment with the U.S. Army.

Stress levels, access to sick leave (or lack thereof), hazardous conditions, and interactions with coworkers have a ripple effect on the lives of workers, their families, and their communities. A safe workplace that supports the well-being of workers can have far-reaching benefits. That’s the premise and promise of Fundamentals of Total Worker Health Approaches: Essential Elements for Advancing Worker Safety, Health, and Well-Being, created by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

The workbook provides a “user-friendly entry point” into total worker health with examples and tips, such as, “design programs with a long-term outlook to ensure sustainability. Short-term approaches have short-term value.” It also includes a self-assessment tool and resources to develop an action plan and measure progress specific to the organization. A new conceptual model—a “hierarchy of controls”—lists ways to minimize or eliminate exposure to hazards in the workplace, from least effective (eg, providing personal protective equipment) to most effective (eg, physically removing the hazard).

Each workplace is unique, NIOSH says, and because the experiences of people who manage and work in them differ, the workbook is not intended as a one-size-fits-all tool. But it can be used to provide a “snapshot” of where the organization is on the path to total worker health.

Stress levels, access to sick leave (or lack thereof), hazardous conditions, and interactions with coworkers have a ripple effect on the lives of workers, their families, and their communities. A safe workplace that supports the well-being of workers can have far-reaching benefits. That’s the premise and promise of Fundamentals of Total Worker Health Approaches: Essential Elements for Advancing Worker Safety, Health, and Well-Being, created by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

The workbook provides a “user-friendly entry point” into total worker health with examples and tips, such as, “design programs with a long-term outlook to ensure sustainability. Short-term approaches have short-term value.” It also includes a self-assessment tool and resources to develop an action plan and measure progress specific to the organization. A new conceptual model—a “hierarchy of controls”—lists ways to minimize or eliminate exposure to hazards in the workplace, from least effective (eg, providing personal protective equipment) to most effective (eg, physically removing the hazard).

Each workplace is unique, NIOSH says, and because the experiences of people who manage and work in them differ, the workbook is not intended as a one-size-fits-all tool. But it can be used to provide a “snapshot” of where the organization is on the path to total worker health.

Stress levels, access to sick leave (or lack thereof), hazardous conditions, and interactions with coworkers have a ripple effect on the lives of workers, their families, and their communities. A safe workplace that supports the well-being of workers can have far-reaching benefits. That’s the premise and promise of Fundamentals of Total Worker Health Approaches: Essential Elements for Advancing Worker Safety, Health, and Well-Being, created by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

The workbook provides a “user-friendly entry point” into total worker health with examples and tips, such as, “design programs with a long-term outlook to ensure sustainability. Short-term approaches have short-term value.” It also includes a self-assessment tool and resources to develop an action plan and measure progress specific to the organization. A new conceptual model—a “hierarchy of controls”—lists ways to minimize or eliminate exposure to hazards in the workplace, from least effective (eg, providing personal protective equipment) to most effective (eg, physically removing the hazard).

Each workplace is unique, NIOSH says, and because the experiences of people who manage and work in them differ, the workbook is not intended as a one-size-fits-all tool. But it can be used to provide a “snapshot” of where the organization is on the path to total worker health.

The HHS has announced more than $50 million in funding for 75 health centers in 23 states, Puerto Rico, and the Federated States of Micronesia.

One in 13 people nationwide depend on a Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)-funded health center for preventive and primary health care needs. Among the special populations served are nearly 2 million homeless patients, 910,172 agricultural workers, and 305,520 veterans.

Health centers are community based and patient directed, delivering comprehensive, culturally competent primary care. They also often link to pharmacy, mental health, substance abuse, and oral health services in areas where economic, geographic, or cultural barriers limit access to affordable health care services.

Although the health centers serve patients who are often sicker and more at risk than is the general population, the quality of care “equals and often surpasses” that provided by other primary care providers, HRSA says. For example, > 93% of HRSA-funded health centers met or exceeded at least 1 goal of Healthy People 2020 for clinical performance in 2015. And > 68% of health centers are recognized by national accrediting organizations as Patient-Centered Medical Homes, an advanced model of team-based primary care.

The health centers, which started 50 years ago with just 2, have expanded to > 9,800 clinic sites. Between 2008 -2015, HRSA-supported centers increased by 27%, and the number of patients increased by 42% to more than 7 million more patients. In 2015 alone, HRSA funded nearly 430 new center sites. Health centers already provide care to  more than 24 million people; this new funding will extend care to about 240,000 additional patients.

The HHS has announced more than $50 million in funding for 75 health centers in 23 states, Puerto Rico, and the Federated States of Micronesia.

One in 13 people nationwide depend on a Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)-funded health center for preventive and primary health care needs. Among the special populations served are nearly 2 million homeless patients, 910,172 agricultural workers, and 305,520 veterans.

Health centers are community based and patient directed, delivering comprehensive, culturally competent primary care. They also often link to pharmacy, mental health, substance abuse, and oral health services in areas where economic, geographic, or cultural barriers limit access to affordable health care services.

Although the health centers serve patients who are often sicker and more at risk than is the general population, the quality of care “equals and often surpasses” that provided by other primary care providers, HRSA says. For example, > 93% of HRSA-funded health centers met or exceeded at least 1 goal of Healthy People 2020 for clinical performance in 2015. And > 68% of health centers are recognized by national accrediting organizations as Patient-Centered Medical Homes, an advanced model of team-based primary care.

The health centers, which started 50 years ago with just 2, have expanded to > 9,800 clinic sites. Between 2008 -2015, HRSA-supported centers increased by 27%, and the number of patients increased by 42% to more than 7 million more patients. In 2015 alone, HRSA funded nearly 430 new center sites. Health centers already provide care to  more than 24 million people; this new funding will extend care to about 240,000 additional patients.

The HHS has announced more than $50 million in funding for 75 health centers in 23 states, Puerto Rico, and the Federated States of Micronesia.

One in 13 people nationwide depend on a Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)-funded health center for preventive and primary health care needs. Among the special populations served are nearly 2 million homeless patients, 910,172 agricultural workers, and 305,520 veterans.

Health centers are community based and patient directed, delivering comprehensive, culturally competent primary care. They also often link to pharmacy, mental health, substance abuse, and oral health services in areas where economic, geographic, or cultural barriers limit access to affordable health care services.

Although the health centers serve patients who are often sicker and more at risk than is the general population, the quality of care “equals and often surpasses” that provided by other primary care providers, HRSA says. For example, > 93% of HRSA-funded health centers met or exceeded at least 1 goal of Healthy People 2020 for clinical performance in 2015. And > 68% of health centers are recognized by national accrediting organizations as Patient-Centered Medical Homes, an advanced model of team-based primary care.

The health centers, which started 50 years ago with just 2, have expanded to > 9,800 clinic sites. Between 2008 -2015, HRSA-supported centers increased by 27%, and the number of patients increased by 42% to more than 7 million more patients. In 2015 alone, HRSA funded nearly 430 new center sites. Health centers already provide care to  more than 24 million people; this new funding will extend care to about 240,000 additional patients.

Americans who live in rural areas are more likely than their urban counterparts are to die of the 5 leading causes of death, according to a CDC study of data from the National Vital Statistics System.

In 2014, 25,000 rural residents died of heart disease, 19,000 of cancer, 12,000 of unintentional injuries, 11,000 of chronic lower respiratory disease, and 4,000 of stroke. The study also found that unintentional injury deaths were about 50% higher in rural areas than in urban areas, partly due to a greater risk of death in vehicle crashes and of opioid overdoses. The problem is compounded by the fact that the distance between health care facilities and trauma centers can make rapid access to specialized health care difficult.

The study researchers say several factors could influence the rural-urban gap. For instance, many of the deaths are associated with sociodemographic differences. Rural residents tend to be older, poorer, and sicker with limited physical activity due to chronic conditions. But that “striking gap” in health can be closed, says CDC Director Tom Frieden, MD, MPH, by better understanding and addressing the health threats that put rural Americans at risk.

CDC suggests, for instance, that health care providers in rural areas:

• Screen patients for high blood pressure and make control a quality improvement goal;
• Increase cancer prevention and early detection—for example, by participating in state-level comprehensive control coalitions, which focus on prevention, education, screening, access, support, and overall good health;
• Encourage physical activity and healthy eating to reduce obesity;
• Encourage patients to stop smoking;
• Promote vehicle safety (rural residents are less likely to use seatbelts); and
• Engage in safe prescribing of opioids for pain, and use nonpharmacologic therapies

The report and a companion commentary are part of a new rural health series in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The Health Resources and Services Administration, which houses the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, will collaborate with the CDC on the series and help promote the findings and recommendations to rural communities.

Americans who live in rural areas are more likely than their urban counterparts are to die of the 5 leading causes of death, according to a CDC study of data from the National Vital Statistics System.

In 2014, 25,000 rural residents died of heart disease, 19,000 of cancer, 12,000 of unintentional injuries, 11,000 of chronic lower respiratory disease, and 4,000 of stroke. The study also found that unintentional injury deaths were about 50% higher in rural areas than in urban areas, partly due to a greater risk of death in vehicle crashes and of opioid overdoses. The problem is compounded by the fact that the distance between health care facilities and trauma centers can make rapid access to specialized health care difficult.

The study researchers say several factors could influence the rural-urban gap. For instance, many of the deaths are associated with sociodemographic differences. Rural residents tend to be older, poorer, and sicker with limited physical activity due to chronic conditions. But that “striking gap” in health can be closed, says CDC Director Tom Frieden, MD, MPH, by better understanding and addressing the health threats that put rural Americans at risk.

CDC suggests, for instance, that health care providers in rural areas:

• Screen patients for high blood pressure and make control a quality improvement goal;
• Increase cancer prevention and early detection—for example, by participating in state-level comprehensive control coalitions, which focus on prevention, education, screening, access, support, and overall good health;
• Encourage physical activity and healthy eating to reduce obesity;
• Encourage patients to stop smoking;
• Promote vehicle safety (rural residents are less likely to use seatbelts); and
• Engage in safe prescribing of opioids for pain, and use nonpharmacologic therapies

The report and a companion commentary are part of a new rural health series in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The Health Resources and Services Administration, which houses the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, will collaborate with the CDC on the series and help promote the findings and recommendations to rural communities.

Americans who live in rural areas are more likely than their urban counterparts are to die of the 5 leading causes of death, according to a CDC study of data from the National Vital Statistics System.

In 2014, 25,000 rural residents died of heart disease, 19,000 of cancer, 12,000 of unintentional injuries, 11,000 of chronic lower respiratory disease, and 4,000 of stroke. The study also found that unintentional injury deaths were about 50% higher in rural areas than in urban areas, partly due to a greater risk of death in vehicle crashes and of opioid overdoses. The problem is compounded by the fact that the distance between health care facilities and trauma centers can make rapid access to specialized health care difficult.

The study researchers say several factors could influence the rural-urban gap. For instance, many of the deaths are associated with sociodemographic differences. Rural residents tend to be older, poorer, and sicker with limited physical activity due to chronic conditions. But that “striking gap” in health can be closed, says CDC Director Tom Frieden, MD, MPH, by better understanding and addressing the health threats that put rural Americans at risk.

CDC suggests, for instance, that health care providers in rural areas:

• Screen patients for high blood pressure and make control a quality improvement goal;
• Increase cancer prevention and early detection—for example, by participating in state-level comprehensive control coalitions, which focus on prevention, education, screening, access, support, and overall good health;
• Encourage physical activity and healthy eating to reduce obesity;
• Encourage patients to stop smoking;
• Promote vehicle safety (rural residents are less likely to use seatbelts); and
• Engage in safe prescribing of opioids for pain, and use nonpharmacologic therapies

The report and a companion commentary are part of a new rural health series in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The Health Resources and Services Administration, which houses the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, will collaborate with the CDC on the series and help promote the findings and recommendations to rural communities.

Normally, negotiations to use drugs in preclinical studies and clinical trials can take as long as 18 months. But the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) new drug formulary will allow investigators at NCI-designated cancer centers quicker access to approved and investigational agents, helping make more effective treatments available sooner.

The NCI Formulary, a public-private partnership between NCI and pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, is one of NCI’s efforts in support of the Cancer Moonshot (ex-Vice President Biden’s call for greater collaboration and faster development of new therapies). The formulary enables NCI to act as an intermediary between investigators at cancer centers and participating pharmaceutical companies, streamlining arrangements for access to and use of drugs.

The formulary launched with 15 targeted agents from 6 pharmaceutical companies: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, Genentech, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Loxo Oncology, and Xcovery Holding Company LLC.

Normally, negotiations to use drugs in preclinical studies and clinical trials can take as long as 18 months. But the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) new drug formulary will allow investigators at NCI-designated cancer centers quicker access to approved and investigational agents, helping make more effective treatments available sooner.

The NCI Formulary, a public-private partnership between NCI and pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, is one of NCI’s efforts in support of the Cancer Moonshot (ex-Vice President Biden’s call for greater collaboration and faster development of new therapies). The formulary enables NCI to act as an intermediary between investigators at cancer centers and participating pharmaceutical companies, streamlining arrangements for access to and use of drugs.

The formulary launched with 15 targeted agents from 6 pharmaceutical companies: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, Genentech, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Loxo Oncology, and Xcovery Holding Company LLC.

Normally, negotiations to use drugs in preclinical studies and clinical trials can take as long as 18 months. But the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) new drug formulary will allow investigators at NCI-designated cancer centers quicker access to approved and investigational agents, helping make more effective treatments available sooner.

The NCI Formulary, a public-private partnership between NCI and pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, is one of NCI’s efforts in support of the Cancer Moonshot (ex-Vice President Biden’s call for greater collaboration and faster development of new therapies). The formulary enables NCI to act as an intermediary between investigators at cancer centers and participating pharmaceutical companies, streamlining arrangements for access to and use of drugs.

The formulary launched with 15 targeted agents from 6 pharmaceutical companies: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, Genentech, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Loxo Oncology, and Xcovery Holding Company LLC.

Diabetes-related kidney failure has declined dramatically among Native Americans—54% between 1996 and 2013— largely thanks to team- and population-based approaches begun by the IHS in the mid-1980s.

In addition to lowering the prevalence of kidney failure, those approaches led to other improvements:

•   Use of medicines to protect kidneys increased from 42% to 74% in 5 years
•      Average blood pressure in people with hypertension is well controlled (133/76 mm Hg in 2015)
•     Blood sugar control improved by 10% between 1996 and 2014
•     Kidney testing in adults aged ≥ 65 years increased  > 10% compared with the Medicare diabetes population

The CDC and IHS advise team-based care should include patient education; community outreach; care coordination; tracking of health outcomes; and access to health care providers, nutritionists, diabetes educators, pharmacists, community health workers, and behavioral health clinicians. For instance, care managers use clinical data to identify people who need to be linked to health care and call patients if they miss appointments. The care model also includes integrating kidney disease prevention and education into routine diabetes care.

Diabetes-related kidney failure has declined dramatically among Native Americans—54% between 1996 and 2013— largely thanks to team- and population-based approaches begun by the IHS in the mid-1980s.

In addition to lowering the prevalence of kidney failure, those approaches led to other improvements:

•   Use of medicines to protect kidneys increased from 42% to 74% in 5 years
•      Average blood pressure in people with hypertension is well controlled (133/76 mm Hg in 2015)
•     Blood sugar control improved by 10% between 1996 and 2014
•     Kidney testing in adults aged ≥ 65 years increased  > 10% compared with the Medicare diabetes population

The CDC and IHS advise team-based care should include patient education; community outreach; care coordination; tracking of health outcomes; and access to health care providers, nutritionists, diabetes educators, pharmacists, community health workers, and behavioral health clinicians. For instance, care managers use clinical data to identify people who need to be linked to health care and call patients if they miss appointments. The care model also includes integrating kidney disease prevention and education into routine diabetes care.

Diabetes-related kidney failure has declined dramatically among Native Americans—54% between 1996 and 2013— largely thanks to team- and population-based approaches begun by the IHS in the mid-1980s.

In addition to lowering the prevalence of kidney failure, those approaches led to other improvements:

•   Use of medicines to protect kidneys increased from 42% to 74% in 5 years
•      Average blood pressure in people with hypertension is well controlled (133/76 mm Hg in 2015)
•     Blood sugar control improved by 10% between 1996 and 2014
•     Kidney testing in adults aged ≥ 65 years increased  > 10% compared with the Medicare diabetes population

The CDC and IHS advise team-based care should include patient education; community outreach; care coordination; tracking of health outcomes; and access to health care providers, nutritionists, diabetes educators, pharmacists, community health workers, and behavioral health clinicians. For instance, care managers use clinical data to identify people who need to be linked to health care and call patients if they miss appointments. The care model also includes integrating kidney disease prevention and education into routine diabetes care.

Nearly half of a group of homeless and formerly homeless veterans reported experiencing food insecurity, according to VA researchers. More than one-quarter of those said they’d averaged only 1 meal a day.

Researchers screened 270 new patients who enrolled in 1 of 6 VA primary care clinics. Screening began with a single question: “In the past month, were there times when the food for you just did not last, and there was no money to buy more?” Patients who answered yes were then asked where they got their food, how many meals per day they ate, whether they prepared their meals, whether they received food stamps, whether they had diabetes, and whether they had symptoms of hypoglycemia.

Of the respondents, 63% were living in their own apartment, and 26% were in a transitional housing program where they were responsible for some of their meals. Of the patients who reported food insecurity, 87% prepared their meals, with half relying on food they bought, 23% on food from soup kitchens and food pantries, 15% from shelters, 19% from family and friends. About half (47%) were receiving food stamps.

One-fifth of the patients had diabetes or prediabetes, and 44% reported hypoglycemia symptoms when without food. The researchers point out that the consequences of food insecurity are “significant and potentially life threatening.” They cite another study that found risk for hospital admissions for hypoglycemia rose 27% in the last week of the month among low-income populations, typically when food stamps and supplies at food pantries ran low or were exhausted.

The study revealed that asking about only food insecurity was not enough, the researchers say. “The additional context provided by the follow-up questions and the breadth of different responses underscored that the needs of these patients extend beyond those available from 1 health care provider or 1 health care discipline.”

Both patients and health care providers endorsed the screening program. One staff member, for instance, called the program a good rapport builder. No team found the questions burdensome, the researchers say. In fact,4  teams said the follow-up questions highlighted the complexity of issues underlying food insecurity and the need for a well-integrated, multidisciplinary approach to the problem.

Nearly half of a group of homeless and formerly homeless veterans reported experiencing food insecurity, according to VA researchers. More than one-quarter of those said they’d averaged only 1 meal a day.

Researchers screened 270 new patients who enrolled in 1 of 6 VA primary care clinics. Screening began with a single question: “In the past month, were there times when the food for you just did not last, and there was no money to buy more?” Patients who answered yes were then asked where they got their food, how many meals per day they ate, whether they prepared their meals, whether they received food stamps, whether they had diabetes, and whether they had symptoms of hypoglycemia.

Of the respondents, 63% were living in their own apartment, and 26% were in a transitional housing program where they were responsible for some of their meals. Of the patients who reported food insecurity, 87% prepared their meals, with half relying on food they bought, 23% on food from soup kitchens and food pantries, 15% from shelters, 19% from family and friends. About half (47%) were receiving food stamps.

One-fifth of the patients had diabetes or prediabetes, and 44% reported hypoglycemia symptoms when without food. The researchers point out that the consequences of food insecurity are “significant and potentially life threatening.” They cite another study that found risk for hospital admissions for hypoglycemia rose 27% in the last week of the month among low-income populations, typically when food stamps and supplies at food pantries ran low or were exhausted.

The study revealed that asking about only food insecurity was not enough, the researchers say. “The additional context provided by the follow-up questions and the breadth of different responses underscored that the needs of these patients extend beyond those available from 1 health care provider or 1 health care discipline.”

Both patients and health care providers endorsed the screening program. One staff member, for instance, called the program a good rapport builder. No team found the questions burdensome, the researchers say. In fact,4  teams said the follow-up questions highlighted the complexity of issues underlying food insecurity and the need for a well-integrated, multidisciplinary approach to the problem.

Nearly half of a group of homeless and formerly homeless veterans reported experiencing food insecurity, according to VA researchers. More than one-quarter of those said they’d averaged only 1 meal a day.

Researchers screened 270 new patients who enrolled in 1 of 6 VA primary care clinics. Screening began with a single question: “In the past month, were there times when the food for you just did not last, and there was no money to buy more?” Patients who answered yes were then asked where they got their food, how many meals per day they ate, whether they prepared their meals, whether they received food stamps, whether they had diabetes, and whether they had symptoms of hypoglycemia.

Of the respondents, 63% were living in their own apartment, and 26% were in a transitional housing program where they were responsible for some of their meals. Of the patients who reported food insecurity, 87% prepared their meals, with half relying on food they bought, 23% on food from soup kitchens and food pantries, 15% from shelters, 19% from family and friends. About half (47%) were receiving food stamps.

One-fifth of the patients had diabetes or prediabetes, and 44% reported hypoglycemia symptoms when without food. The researchers point out that the consequences of food insecurity are “significant and potentially life threatening.” They cite another study that found risk for hospital admissions for hypoglycemia rose 27% in the last week of the month among low-income populations, typically when food stamps and supplies at food pantries ran low or were exhausted.

The study revealed that asking about only food insecurity was not enough, the researchers say. “The additional context provided by the follow-up questions and the breadth of different responses underscored that the needs of these patients extend beyond those available from 1 health care provider or 1 health care discipline.”

Both patients and health care providers endorsed the screening program. One staff member, for instance, called the program a good rapport builder. No team found the questions burdensome, the researchers say. In fact,4  teams said the follow-up questions highlighted the complexity of issues underlying food insecurity and the need for a well-integrated, multidisciplinary approach to the problem.

The number of older Americans is growing, but the number of those with hearing loss is declining, according to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Researchers compared 2 time periods (1999-2004 and 2011-2012) and found overall annual prevalence of hearing loss dropped from 16% to 14% in 1999-2004, to 28 million adults, then dropped further to 27.7 million in 2011-2012.

Age was the greatest predictor of hearing loss; people in the oldest age group surveyed (aged 60 to 69) had the most loss. Although not included in the study, people aged ≥ 70 years have the highest prevalence of hearing loss of any age group, the authors say. Men of all ages were twice as likely as women to have hearing loss. Non-Hispanic white adults were more likely to have hearing loss than were adults in other ethnic groups. Non-Hispanic black adults had the lowest risk.

The researchers don’t know why hearing loss is becoming less prevalent but suggest reasons include fewer manufacturing jobs, increased use of hearing protectors, less smoking, and better medical care to manage risk factors associated with hearing loss. They did find that lower education level and heavy use of firearms were associated with hearing loss.

“Our findings show a promising trend of better hearing among adults that spans more than half a century,” says Howard Hoffman, MA, first author on the paper and director of the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Epidemiology and Statistics Program. “The decline in hearing loss rates among adults aged < 70 years suggests that age-related hearing loss may be delayed until later in life. This is good news because for those who do develop hearing loss, they will have experienced more quality years of life with better hearing than earlier generations."

The number of older Americans is growing, but the number of those with hearing loss is declining, according to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Researchers compared 2 time periods (1999-2004 and 2011-2012) and found overall annual prevalence of hearing loss dropped from 16% to 14% in 1999-2004, to 28 million adults, then dropped further to 27.7 million in 2011-2012.

Age was the greatest predictor of hearing loss; people in the oldest age group surveyed (aged 60 to 69) had the most loss. Although not included in the study, people aged ≥ 70 years have the highest prevalence of hearing loss of any age group, the authors say. Men of all ages were twice as likely as women to have hearing loss. Non-Hispanic white adults were more likely to have hearing loss than were adults in other ethnic groups. Non-Hispanic black adults had the lowest risk.

The researchers don’t know why hearing loss is becoming less prevalent but suggest reasons include fewer manufacturing jobs, increased use of hearing protectors, less smoking, and better medical care to manage risk factors associated with hearing loss. They did find that lower education level and heavy use of firearms were associated with hearing loss.

“Our findings show a promising trend of better hearing among adults that spans more than half a century,” says Howard Hoffman, MA, first author on the paper and director of the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Epidemiology and Statistics Program. “The decline in hearing loss rates among adults aged < 70 years suggests that age-related hearing loss may be delayed until later in life. This is good news because for those who do develop hearing loss, they will have experienced more quality years of life with better hearing than earlier generations."

The number of older Americans is growing, but the number of those with hearing loss is declining, according to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Researchers compared 2 time periods (1999-2004 and 2011-2012) and found overall annual prevalence of hearing loss dropped from 16% to 14% in 1999-2004, to 28 million adults, then dropped further to 27.7 million in 2011-2012.

Age was the greatest predictor of hearing loss; people in the oldest age group surveyed (aged 60 to 69) had the most loss. Although not included in the study, people aged ≥ 70 years have the highest prevalence of hearing loss of any age group, the authors say. Men of all ages were twice as likely as women to have hearing loss. Non-Hispanic white adults were more likely to have hearing loss than were adults in other ethnic groups. Non-Hispanic black adults had the lowest risk.

The researchers don’t know why hearing loss is becoming less prevalent but suggest reasons include fewer manufacturing jobs, increased use of hearing protectors, less smoking, and better medical care to manage risk factors associated with hearing loss. They did find that lower education level and heavy use of firearms were associated with hearing loss.

“Our findings show a promising trend of better hearing among adults that spans more than half a century,” says Howard Hoffman, MA, first author on the paper and director of the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Epidemiology and Statistics Program. “The decline in hearing loss rates among adults aged < 70 years suggests that age-related hearing loss may be delayed until later in life. This is good news because for those who do develop hearing loss, they will have experienced more quality years of life with better hearing than earlier generations."

Veterans are 40% more likely than nonveterans to experience severe pain, according to the 2010-2014 National Health Interview Survey. Epidemiologists from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health analyzed data on 6,647 veterans and 61,049 nonveterans who were asked about the persistence and intensity of self-reported pain during the previous 3 months.

Veterans were more likely to report having pain (65.5% vs 56.4%) and more likely to describe severe pain—that is, pain that occurred “most days” or “every day” and bothered the respondent “a lot” (9.1% vs 6.3%). Younger veterans in particular were more than 2 times as likely to report severe pain (7.8% vs 3.2%), even when researchers controlled for underlying demographic characteristics. Veterans aged 18 to 39 years and 50 to 59 years were more likely than nonveterans of the same ages to have any pain, but veterans aged ≥ 70 years were less likely to have severe pain than were similarly aged nonveterans.

Back pain and joint pain topped the list for veterans compared with jaw pain and migraines for nonveterans.

The majority of veteran participants were men (92.5%), whereas the majority of nonveteran participants were women (56.5%). The survey data did not identify any specific aspects of military service, including branch of the armed forces, years of service, or whether the veteran served in a combat role.

The survey also didn’t collect information on pain treatment, so it isn’t clear whether differences in treatment would explain the differences in pain experiences. Nor did the survey reveal whether younger veterans with severe pain were in pain despite treatment or because they weren’t getting any treatment.

 “These findings suggest that more attention should be paid to helping veterans manage the impact of severe pain and related disability on daily activities,” the lead researcher said.

Veterans are 40% more likely than nonveterans to experience severe pain, according to the 2010-2014 National Health Interview Survey. Epidemiologists from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health analyzed data on 6,647 veterans and 61,049 nonveterans who were asked about the persistence and intensity of self-reported pain during the previous 3 months.

Veterans were more likely to report having pain (65.5% vs 56.4%) and more likely to describe severe pain—that is, pain that occurred “most days” or “every day” and bothered the respondent “a lot” (9.1% vs 6.3%). Younger veterans in particular were more than 2 times as likely to report severe pain (7.8% vs 3.2%), even when researchers controlled for underlying demographic characteristics. Veterans aged 18 to 39 years and 50 to 59 years were more likely than nonveterans of the same ages to have any pain, but veterans aged ≥ 70 years were less likely to have severe pain than were similarly aged nonveterans.

Back pain and joint pain topped the list for veterans compared with jaw pain and migraines for nonveterans.

The majority of veteran participants were men (92.5%), whereas the majority of nonveteran participants were women (56.5%). The survey data did not identify any specific aspects of military service, including branch of the armed forces, years of service, or whether the veteran served in a combat role.

The survey also didn’t collect information on pain treatment, so it isn’t clear whether differences in treatment would explain the differences in pain experiences. Nor did the survey reveal whether younger veterans with severe pain were in pain despite treatment or because they weren’t getting any treatment.

 “These findings suggest that more attention should be paid to helping veterans manage the impact of severe pain and related disability on daily activities,” the lead researcher said.

Veterans are 40% more likely than nonveterans to experience severe pain, according to the 2010-2014 National Health Interview Survey. Epidemiologists from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health analyzed data on 6,647 veterans and 61,049 nonveterans who were asked about the persistence and intensity of self-reported pain during the previous 3 months.

Veterans were more likely to report having pain (65.5% vs 56.4%) and more likely to describe severe pain—that is, pain that occurred “most days” or “every day” and bothered the respondent “a lot” (9.1% vs 6.3%). Younger veterans in particular were more than 2 times as likely to report severe pain (7.8% vs 3.2%), even when researchers controlled for underlying demographic characteristics. Veterans aged 18 to 39 years and 50 to 59 years were more likely than nonveterans of the same ages to have any pain, but veterans aged ≥ 70 years were less likely to have severe pain than were similarly aged nonveterans.

Back pain and joint pain topped the list for veterans compared with jaw pain and migraines for nonveterans.

The majority of veteran participants were men (92.5%), whereas the majority of nonveteran participants were women (56.5%). The survey data did not identify any specific aspects of military service, including branch of the armed forces, years of service, or whether the veteran served in a combat role.

The survey also didn’t collect information on pain treatment, so it isn’t clear whether differences in treatment would explain the differences in pain experiences. Nor did the survey reveal whether younger veterans with severe pain were in pain despite treatment or because they weren’t getting any treatment.

 “These findings suggest that more attention should be paid to helping veterans manage the impact of severe pain and related disability on daily activities,” the lead researcher said.