Workers' Compensation: Health

Showing posts with label Health. Show all posts

Thursday, December 5, 2013

President Obama Statement on the Benefits of the Affordable Care Act

Thanks to Monica, thanks to everybody standing behind me, and thanks for everybody out there who cares deeply about this issue. Monica’s story is important because for all the day-to-day fights here in Washington around the Affordable Care Act, it’s stories like hers that should remind us why we took on this reform in the first place.

And for too long, few things left working families more vulnerable to the anxieties and insecurities of today’s economy than a broken health care system. So we took up the fight because we believe that, in America, nobody should have to worry about going broke just because somebody in their family or they get sick. We believe that nobody should have to choose between putting food on their kids’ table or taking them to see a doctor. We believe we’re a better country than a country where we allow, every day, 14,000 Americans to lose their health coverage; or where every year, tens of thousands of Americans died because they didn’t have health care; or where out-of-pocket costs drove millions of citizens into poverty in the wealthiest nation on Earth. We thought we were better than that, and that’s why we took this on. (Applause.)

And that’s what’s gotten lost a little bit over the last couple of months. And our focus, rightly, had to shift towards working 24/7 to fix the website, healthcare.gov, for the new marketplaces where people can buy affordable insurance plans. And today, the website is working well for the vast majority of users. More problems may pop up, as they always do when you’re launching something new. And when they do, we’ll fix those, too. But what we also know is that after just the first month, despite all the problems in the rollout, about half a million people across the country are poised to gain health care coverage through marketplaces and Medicaid beginning on January 1st -- some for the very first time. We know that -- half a million people. (Applause.) And that number is increasing every day and it is going to keep growing and growing and growing, because we know that there are 41 million people out there without health insurance. And we know there are a whole bunch of folks out there who are underinsured or don’t have a good deal. And we know the demand is there and we know that the product on these marketplaces is good and it provides choice and competition for people that allow them, in some cases for the very first time, to have the security that health insurance can provide.

The bottom line is this law is working and will work into the future. People want the financial stability of health insurance. And we’re going to keep on working to fix whatever problems come up in any startup, any launch of a project this big that has an impact on one-sixth of our economy, whatever comes up we’re going to just fix it because we know that the ultimate goal, the ultimate aim, is to make sure that people have basic security and the foundation for the good health that they need.

Now, we may never satisfy the law’s opponents. I think that’s fair to say. Some of them are rooting for this law to fail -- that’s not my opinion, by the way, they say it pretty explicitly. (Laughter.) Some have already convinced themselves that the law has failed, regardless of the evidence. But I would advise them to check with the people who are here today and the people that they represent all across the country whose lives have been changed for the better by the Affordable Care Act.

The other day I got a letter from Julia Walsh in California. Earlier this year, Julia was diagnosed with leukemia and lymphoma. “I have a lot of things to worry about,” she wrote. “But thanks to the [Affordable Care Act], there are lots of things I do not have to worry about, like…whether there will be a lifetime cap on benefits, [or] whether my treatment will bankrupt my family…I can’t begin to tell you how much that peace of mind means...” That’s what the Affordable Care Act means to Julia. She already had insurance, by the way, but because this law banned lifetime limits on the care you or your family can receive, she’s never going to have to choose between providing for her kids or getting herself well -- she can do both.

Sam Weir, a doctor in North Carolina, emailed me the other day. “The coming years will be challenging for all of us in family medicine,” he wrote. “But my colleagues and I draw strength from knowing that beginning with the new year the preventive care many of our current patients have been putting off will be covered and the patients we have not yet seen will finally be able to get the care that they have long needed.” That’s the difference that the Affordable Care Act will make for many of Dr. Weir’s patients. Because more than 100 million Americans with insurance have gained access to recommended preventive care like mammograms, or colonoscopies, or flu shots, or contraception to help them stay healthy -- at no out-of-pocket cost. (Applause.)

At the young age of 23, Justine Ula is battling cancer for the second time. And the other day, her mom, Joann, emailed me from Cleveland University Hospital where Justine is undergoing treatment. She told me she stopped by the pharmacy to pick up Justine’s medicine. If Justine were uninsured, it would have cost her $4,500. But she is insured -- because the Affordable Care Act has let her and three million other young people like Monica gain coverage by staying on their parents’ plan until they’re 26. (Applause.) And that means Justine’s mom, all she had to cover was the $25 co-pay.

Because of the Affordable Care Act, more than 7 million seniors and Americans with disabilities have saved an average of $1,200 on their prescription medicine. (Applause.) This year alone, 8.5 million families have actually gotten an average of $100 back from their insurance company -- you don’t hear that very often -- (laughter) -- because it spent too much on things like overhead, and not enough on their care. And, by the way, health care costs are rising at the slowest rate in 50 years. So we’re actually bending the cost of health care overall, which benefits everybody. (Applause.)

So that’s what this law means to millions of Americans. And my main message today is: We’re not going back. We’re not going to betray Monica, or Julia, or Sam, or Justine, or Joann. (Applause.) I mean, that seems to be the only alternative that Obamacare’s critics have is, well, let’s just go back to the status quo -- because they sure haven’t presented an alternative. If you ask many of the opponents of this law what exactly they’d do differently, their answer seems to be, well, let’s go back to the way things used to be.

Just the other day, the Republican Leader in the Senate was asked what benefits people without health care might see from this law. And he refused to answer, even though there are dozens in this room and tens of thousands in his own state who are already on track to benefit from it. He just repeated “repeal” over and over and over again. And obviously we’ve heard that from a lot of folks on that side of the aisle.

Look, I’ve always said I will work with anybody to implement and improve this law effectively. If you’ve got good ideas, bring them to me. Let’s go. But we’re not repealing it as long as I’m President and I want everybody to be clear about that. (Applause.)

We will make it work for all Americans. If you don’t like this law -- (applause) -- so, if despite all the millions of people who are benefitting from it, you still think this law is a bad idea then you’ve got to tell us specifically what you’d do differently to cut costs, cover more people, make insurance more secure. You can’t just say that the system was working with 41 million people without health insurance. You can’t just say that the system is working when you’ve got a whole bunch of folks who thought they had decent insurance and then when they got sick, it turned out it wasn’t there for them or they were left with tens of thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs that were impossible for them to pay.

Right now, what that law is doing -- (baby talks.) Yes, you agree with me. (Laughter.) Right now, what this law is doing is helping folks and we’re just getting started with the exchanges, just getting started with the marketplaces. So we’re not going to walk away from it. If I’ve got to fight another three years to make sure this law works, then that’s what I’ll do. That’s what we’ll do. (Applause.)

But what’s important for everybody to remember is not only that the law has already helped millions of people but that there are millions more who stand to be helped. And we’ve got to make sure they know that. And I’ve said very clearly that our poor execution in the first couple months on the website clouded the fact that there are a whole bunch of people who stand to benefit. Now that the website is working for the vast majority of people, we need to make sure that folks refocus on what’s at stake here, which is the capacity for you or your families to be able to have the security of decent health insurance at a reasonable cost through choice and competition on this marketplace and tax credits that you may be eligible for that can save you hundreds of dollars in premium costs every month, potentially.

So we just need people to -- now that we are getting the technology fixed -- we need you to go back, take a look at what’s actually going on, because it can make a difference in your lives and the lives of your families. And maybe it won’t make a difference right now if you’re feeling healthy, but I promise you, if somebody in your family -- heaven forbid -- gets sick, you’ll see the difference. And it will make all the difference for you and your families.

So I’m going to need some help in spreading the word -- I’m going to need some help in spreading the word. I need you to spread the word about the law, about its benefits, about its protections, about how folks can sign up. Tell your friends. Tell your family. Do not let the initial problems with the website discourage you because it’s working better now and it’s just going to keep on working better over time. Every day I check to make sure that it’s working better. (Laughter.) And we’ve learned not to make wild promises about how perfectly smooth it’s going to be at all time, but if you really want health insurance through the marketplaces, you’re going to be able to get on and find the information that you need for your families at healthcare.gov.

So if you’ve already got health insurance or you’ve already taken advantage of the Affordable Care Act, you’ve got to tell your friends, you’ve got to tell your family. Tell your coworkers. Tell your neighbors. Let’s help our fellow Americans get covered. Let’s give every American a fighting chance in today’s economy.

Thank you so much, everybody. God bless you. God bless America. (Applause.)

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

US Labor Department seeks public comment on agency standards to improve chemical safety

The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration today announced a request for information seeking public comment on potential revisions to its Process Safety Management standard and related standards, as well as other policy options to prevent major chemical incidents.

The RFI is in response to executive order 13650, which seeks to improve chemical facility safety and security, issued in the wake of the April 2013 West, Texas, tragedy that killed 15 in an ammonium nitrate explosion.

In addition to comments on its Process Safety Management standard, OSHA seeks input on potential updates to its Explosives and Blasting Agents, Flammable Liquids and Spray Finishing standards, as well as potential changes to PSM enforcement policies. The agency also asks for information and data on specific rulemaking and policy options, and the workplace hazards they address. OSHA will use the information received in response to this RFI to determine what actions, if any, it may take.

After publication of the RFI in the Federal Register, the public will have 90 days to submit written comments. Once the RFI is published in the Federal Register, interested parties may submit comments at www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Comments may also be submitted by mail or facsimile. To view the RFI visit http://www.osha.gov/chemicalexecutiveorder/OSHA_PSM_RFI.pdf. For more information, visit www.osha.gov/chemicalexecutiveorder/index.html.

Rare Cancer Treatments, Cleared by F.D.A. but Not Subject to Scrutiny

Today's post was shared by The New York Times and comes from www.nytimes.com

When federal regulators permitted the sale of an unproved device that uses intense heat to combat cancer, they did so for a compelling reason, to give hope to some women desperately ill with cervical cancer.

Over the next two years, however, the few hospitals that purchased the $500,000 device did not take part in a study of patients that the manufacturer agreed to perform as a part of the machine’s approval. Cancer experts also said they were surprised that the Food and Drug Administration had approved the machine in the first place.

The reason: The group of woman for whom the F.D.A. approved the treatment — those with advanced cervical cancer who are too ill for chemotherapy — is so small. “I see, like, one patient like this a year,” said Dr. Junzo P. Chino, a cancer expert at Duke University.

A look at the F.D.A.’s decision to approve the device, which is called the BSD-2000, opens a window onto a little-known regulation known as the humanitarian device exemption.

The program, even its critics agree, is based on the best intentions. Because companies have little incentive to run costly trials for products used by small groups of patients, the exemption requires a producer only to show that a device is safe and has a “probable” benefit, rather than prove its effectiveness, the usual standard.

The rule, which is similar to one governing drugs for extremely rare diseases, also does not require the F.D.A., companies or...

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Found on

CDC releases new findings and prevention tools to improve food safety in restaurants

Increased awareness and implementation of proper food safety in restaurants and delis may help prevent many of the foodborne illness outbreaks reported each year in the United States, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Researchers identified gaps in the education of restaurant workers as well as public health surveillance, two critical tools necessary in preventing a very common and costly public health problem.

The research identifies food preparation and handling practices, worker health policies, and hand-washing practices among the underlying environmental factors that often are not reported during foodborne outbreaks, even though more than half of all the foodborne outbreaks that are reported each year are associated with restaurants or delis. Forty-eight million people become ill and 3,000 die in the United States.

"Inspectors have not had a formal system to capture and report the underlying factors that likely contribute to foodborne outbreaks or a way to inform prevention strategies and implement routine corrective measures in restaurants, delis and schools to prevent future outbreaks," said Carol Selman, head of CDC's Environmental Health Specialists Network team at the National Center for Environmental Health.

Four articles published today in the Journal of Food Protection focus on actions steps to prevent foodborne illness outbreaks related to ground beef, chicken, and leafy vegetables like lettuce and spinach. The articles also focus on specific food safety practices, such as ill workers not working while they are sick, as a key prevention strategy.

Since 2000, CDC has worked with state and local health departments to develop new surveillance and training tools to advance the use of environmental health assessments as a part of foodborne outbreak investigations.
The National Voluntary Environmental Assessment Information System (NVEAIS) is a new surveillance system targeted to state, tribal and other localities that inspect and regulate restaurants and other food venues such as banquet facilities, schools, and other institutions. The system provides an avenue to capture underlying environmental assessment data that describes what happened and how events most likely lead to a foodborne outbreak. These data will help CDC and other public health professionals determine and understand more completely the primary and underlying causes of foodborne illness outbreaks.
A free interactive e-learning course has been developed to help state and local health departments investigate foodborne illness outbreaks in restaurants and other food service venues as a member of a larger outbreak response team, identify an outbreak's environmental causes, and recommend appropriate control measures. This e-learning course is also available to members of the food industry, academia and the public, anyone interested in understanding the causes of foodborne outbreaks.

"We are taking a key step forward in capturing critical data that will allow us to assemble a big picture view of the environmental causes of foodborne outbreaks," Selman said.

The data surveillance system and e-Learning course will debut in early 2014. With these tools, state, and local public health food safety programs will be able to report data from environmental assessments as a part of outbreak investigations and prevent future foodborne outbreaks in restaurants and other food service establishments.

CDC developed these products in collaboration with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and state and local health departments.

For more information about the National Voluntary Environmental Assessment Information System: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/EHSNet/resources/nveais.htm

For information about free e-Learning courses in Environmental Assessment of Foodborne Illness Outbreaks:http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/eLearn/EA_FIO/index.htm

….

Jon L. Gelman of Wayne NJ is the author NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson). For over 4 decades the Law Offices of Jon L Gelman 1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.

December 3rd is International Day of Persons with Disabilities

Around the world, people with disabilities face physical, social, economic and attitudinal barriers that exclude them from participating fully and effectively as equal members of society. December 3rd is International Day of Persons with Disabilities. This year's theme is "break barriers, open doors: for an inclusive society for all." The commemoration of this year's International Day of Persons with Disabilities provides an opportunity to further raise awareness of disability and accessibility as a cross cutting development issue. It will also further the global efforts to promote accessibility, remove all types of barriers, and to realize the full and equal participation of people with disabilities in society and shape the future of development for all.1

A CDC Initiative: Including People with Disabilities

At CDC, we operate on the principle that people with disabilities are best served by Public Health when they are included in mainstream public health activities. To that end, inclusion might require appropriate accommodations to reduce or eliminate barriers that limit the participation of people with disabilities in health activities. When children and adults with disabilities receive needed programs, services and health care across their lifespan, they can reach their full potential, have an improved quality of life, and experience independence.

In 2010, CDC Director Dr. Thomas Frieden established an initiative to serve the health needs of people with a disability in the United States. CDC's Disability and Health Work Group was established in 2010 for centers and offices within the agency. The disability inclusion initiative has increased awareness and fostered activities focused on integrating disability into CDC's mainstream public health activities.

Objectives

People with disabilities need public health programs and healthcare services for the same reasons anyone does—to be well, active, and a part of the community. CDC works to include people with disabilities by

improving health monitoring of people of all ages with disabilities to identify disparities in health between people with and without disabilities;
including disability status indicators in key CDC monitoring programs;
conducting public health research to understand the health risks experienced by people with disabilities;
encouraging participation of people with disabilities in program activities conducted or supported by CDC;
developing and disseminating accessible health communications and messages to people with sensory (e.g., blindness, deafness) or cognitive (e.g., intellectual disability) limitations.

Disability Resources at CDC

Being healthy means the same thing for all of us—staying well so we can lead full, active lives. Having the tools and information to make healthy choices and knowing how to prevent illness is key to being well, with or without a disability.

Visit these resources to learn more:

As we commemorate International Day of Persons with Disabilities, we ask you to join us in being a part of the global disability movement to change attitudes and approaches to disability to promote the equity and full inclusion of people with disabilities in society and across public health activities.

Resources

References

International Day of Persons with Disabilities, 3 December 2013. United Nations Enable. Available at http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=1607 . Accessed October 21 2013

Saturday, November 30, 2013

Hip Replacement Lawsuit: ASR Settlement ($2.5 Billion) Benefits Announced

The settlement terms of the ASR HIp Implant lawsuit have been announced:

The ASR Settlement provides for three basic areas of compensation.

The first is a Base Payment to all ASR Claimants (XL and resurfacing) who have undergone a revision surgery, removing the
acetabular cup, prior to August 31, 2013.

The second is for Claimants who have undergone a revision surgery in both their left and right hips (Bilateral Claimants).

The third addresses patients who have suffered a variety of medical complications following a revision surgery (Extraordinary Injury Fund).

In addition, the Settlement provides for the resolution of healthcare insurance liens for
medical costs that are directly associated with the revision surgery, at no additional cost to the
claimant.

Click here to read the complete press release issued by the Settlement Oversight Committee

Click here to read about the lawsuit.

Friday, November 29, 2013

Scientific Evidence to Support 'Seven Generations' future thinking; our toxic chemical exposures may harm our great-grandchildren

Thinking beyond today and beyond specific employee exposure is critical for the analysis of the consequences of our environment and health. One would think that we woud have learned of the serious medical problems caused by the consequences of being a household contact to an asbestos worker. Proven has been the causal relationship to asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. The future effects of industrial and environmental pollution are the subject of an insightful article by Jennifer Sass, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and, Professorial Lecturer, George Washington University (SEIU Local 500).

Native American tribes hold dear the concept of seven generations planning, that the impact of decisions should be considered out seven generations into the future, about 150 years. The idea is that our decisions today should consider the potential benefits or harm that would be felt by seven future generations. While such future-thinking has obvious ethical and moral value, it seems that it may also have scientific validity.
A recent article by Washington State University biologist, Dr. Michael Skinner and his scientific team provides evidence from rat studies that male infertility can result from an exposure to the pesticide vinclozolin. What’s the catch? The pesticide exposure was not to the infertile rat, but to its great grandmother, three generations earlier!
But, this wasn’t Skinner’s first article on...

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Found on

Thursday, November 28, 2013

Dying Young: Why your Social and Economic Status May be a death sentence in America

Lisa F. Berkman, Ph.D., Thomas D. Cabot Professor of Public Policy and Epidemiology, Director, Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies

I will discuss two issues today. First, I will describe trends in U.S. life expectancy and the unequal distribution of mortality risk by socioeconomic status in the United States. Secondly, I will elaborate on options for improving the nation’s health, especially related to labor policies for low wage workers. I will frame our options for improving health in terms of what we can do to create a healthy population and prevent disease.

Before the United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions

Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging Hearing on “Dying Young: Why your Social and Economic Status May be a death sentence in America”

November 20, 2013

First, U.S. overall life expectancy—that is the expected number of years someone born today can expect to live—has lost ground compared to that of other nations in the last decades, especially for women. I was a member of a recent National Academy of Science Panel on diverging trends in longevity. It found that the U.S. ranked at the bottom of 21 developed, industrialized nations1 and poor rankings were particularly striking for women. In 1980’s our rankings were in the middle of OECD countries in this study. While it is true that LE improved during this time from by 5.6 years for men and 3.6 years for women, other countries gained substantially more in terms of life expectancy, leaving us behind. Furthermore, almost all those gains were concentrated among the most socioeconomically advantaged segments of the U.S. population. And they were more substantial for men than for women. The poorest Americans experienced the greatest health disadvantage compared to those in other countries2,3. At a recent NIH conference, the discussion was focused on the steps required for the US to reach just the OECD average in the next 20 years—not even the top. It seems we have given up on achieving better than average health.

More concerning is the widening gap in mortality—or risk of death—between those at the bottom and at the top in the US. These gaps have widened over the last 25 years. These patterns are evident whether we look at education, income or wealth differentials, but because the evidence is clearest that education itself is causally linked to health and functioning4,5, I will focus on these associations. For instance, the mortality for men with less than a high school education in 2007, was about 7 per 100. For those with 16 years or more of education, the rate was less than 2 per 100. This corresponds to a three and half fold risk of dying in 2007, compared to 2.5 times the risk in 1993. For less educated women, their mortality risk actually increased absolutely during this time giving rise to an increased risk from 1.9 to 3 in 20076 and this pattern holds even if we confine our analyses to white women7. While it is true that fewer adults are in the less educated pool in later years, giving rise to questions about selection issues, it is also true that adults in the highest educated categories have grown over this same time suggesting increased compositional heterogeneity in these groups. Overall while selection into education level occurs, it accounts for only a small part of this widening gap.

While mortality gaps in socioeconomic status have existed for centuries, the magnitude of these differences has grown substantially over time in the United States. These widening disparities suggest that either disparities in the underlying determinants of illness and mortality have also been growing over time or that support to buffer these stressful conditions has changed. In either case, while we may not be able to eliminate health disparities, the fact that the size of the risks varies so much suggests that such large inequalities are not inevitable or innate and, gives hope that there are ways to reduce the burden of illness for our most vulnerable citizens.

Now, using a public health framework, I discuss the identification of health risks. While health insurance and access to medical care help reduce risks of financial catastrophe and can improve the health of those suffering from illness, health care alone cannot ensure good health and prevent the onset of disease. To illustrate this point, we can think of the aspirin/headache analogy. “While Aspirin cures a headache, lack of aspirin is not the cause of headaches.” Headaches are not caused by aspirin deficiency— to reduce headaches we need to focus on what causes headaches. This is what prevention and public health approaches offer. Obviously it would be better to maintain health than have to treat illness once it occurs. Treatments are financially very costly, but more importantly, waiting to treat disease is costly to the quality of lives of all Americans.

What would be required to produce better health among Americans and reduce socioeconomic disparities in health? What do poor socioeconomic conditions influence that could cause such increased risk across such a huge number of diseases across all age groups from the infancy to old age? You are all probably thinking about the usual suspects— smoking, poor diet, and lack of exercise. I’m not going to focus on these usual suspects today, not because I don’t believe they pose substantial risks to health, but because we know that it is very hard to change these behaviors without considering the social and economic conditions that shape them. These social and economic conditions are fundamental determinants of health because they influence so many behaviors and access to so many opportunities and resources. Change here will influence a number of channels leading to increased mortality risk. In my testimony I will focus on one of these conditions relating to participation in the labor market

Several years ago, I embarked on a study to assess the relationships between employment, family dynamics and health. We found that employment was almost always associated with better health. These associations lasted well into old age.

Women who had the lowest mortality risk in later adulthood had spent some time out of the labor market (a few years over the career path) but maintain steady labor force participation for most of their lives until retirement. Drawing on data from the Health and Retirement Study, we find that the among married mothers, those who never worked had an age-standardized mortality rate of 52.6 whereas mothers who took some time off when their children were young but who later joined the work force and mortality rates of around 40. Single mothers who never worked had the highest mortality of 98 compared to 68 for single mothers who worked.

Selection into the labor force may account for some of this association, but more experimental evidence confirms the positive health benefits of working especially for low-income women and men.

For example, the EITC is associated with improvements in infant health and decreases in smoking among mothers8. In an analysis of state variation in the Earned Income tax Credits (EITCs) between 1980 and 2002, Strully finds that EITC’s increase birth weights by, on average, 16 grams. To put that in context, it is equal to about a third of the association between birth weight and having a mother with a high school degree. Living in state with EITC reduces the odds of maternal smoking by 5%, and increases mother’s odds of working and increases her wages and salary.

Recent evidence from a several studies of maternity leave policies in the United States and Europe suggests that, by protecting employment among mothers in the period around birth, maternity leave leads to better long-term labor market outcomes after maternity including wage level and growth, career prospects, labor market attachment and employability9,10,11,12. Thus not only may maternity leave benefit children and mothers around the period of birth, they may have on term benefits for mothers that extend for decades in later adulthood.

In an observational study of employees in long term care facilities, we found that workers whose managers were attentive to work-family issues had half the cardiovascular risks as assessed by objective biomarkers from blood or clinical exam and healthier patterns of sleep compared to those who worked for less family-friendly managers13. Specifically, employees whose managers maintained family friendly practices were less likely to be overweight, had lower risk of diabetes and lower blood pressure. Based on objective measures of sleep using actigraphy monitors, these same employees slept almost 30 minutes more per night than their counterparts. For nurses and certified nursing assistants in low and middle wage jobs, these are important risks to which they were exposed.

Such research suggests that labor policies and practices that support men and women in the labor force and especially help those with caregiving obligations are health promoting. These policies and practices have health effects that are not often “counted” as we think about their costs and benefits. Men and women will need opportunities and flexibility and schedule control to enter and remain in the labor force given the inevitability of having to care for children, parents, or partners at some point in time. Our goal for women should be to enable them to be successful in their productive as well as reproductive lives. Right now, we make this very difficult. Our labor policies challenge working class families to remain committed to work and to their families. For example, over half (54%) of low wage earners lack sick leave or vacation to take care of families and around 30% of middle income families lack such leave14. Even fewer have parental leave.

We have shown that we can identify the socioeconomic disparities in health with some precision. Solutions that help to maintain low and working class men and women in the paid labor force have clear health benefits. The EITC, pro-family work policies and practices and parental leave are examples of polices that impact health of low income working families. Targets enabling adults to participate in the paid labor force while not risking the health and wellbeing of their family members show particular value. Metrics for evaluating social and economic policies do not currently include health metrics. The health spillovers of such policies would increase the benefits of such policies in any cost-benefit equations. We want to ensure that Americans, particularly those living in poverty and working class families aren’t robbed of healthy years of life.

-------------

1 National Research Council (US) Panel on Understanding Divergent Trends in Longevity in High-Income Countries; Crimmins EM, Preston SH, Cohen B, editors. Explaining Divergent Levels of Longevity in High-Income Countries. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2011. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62369/

2 Avendano M, Glymour MM, Banks J, Mackenbach JP. Health disadvantage in US

adults aged 50 to 74 years: a comparison of the health of rich and poor Americans

with that of Europeans. Am J Public Health. 2009 Mar;99(3):540-8. doi:

10.2105/AJPH.2008.139469. Epub 2009 Jan 15. PubMed PMID: 19150903; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2661456.

3 Banks J, Marmot M, Oldfield Z, Smith JP. Disease and disadvantage in the

United States and in England. JAMA. 2006 May 3;295(17):2037-45. PubMed PMID:

16670412.

4 Lleras-Muney, Adriana. "The Relationships Between Education And Adult Mortality In The United States," Review of Economic Studies, 2005, v72(250,Jan), 189-221.

5 Glymour MM, Kawachi I, Jencks CS, Berkman LF. Does childhood schooling affect

old age memory or mental status? Using state schooling laws as natural

experiments. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2008 Jun;62(6):532-7. doi:

10.1136/jech.2006.059469. PubMed PMID: 18477752; PubMed Central PMCID:

PMC2796854.

6 Ma J, Xu J, Anderson RN, Jemal A (2012) Widening Educational Disparities in Premature Death Rates in Twenty Six States in the United States, 1993–2007. PLoS ONE 7(7): e41560. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0041560

7 Montez JK, Hummer RA, Hayward MD, Woo H, Rogers RG. Trends in the Educational Gradient of U.S. Adult Mortality from 1986 to 2006 by Race, Gender, and Age Group. Res Aging. 2011 Mar;33(2):145-171. PubMed PMID: 21897495; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3166515.

8 Strully KW, Rehkopf DH, Xuan Z. Effects of Prenatal Poverty on Infant Health:

State Earned Income Tax Credits and Birth Weight. Am Sociol Rev. 2010 Aug

11;75(4):534-562. PubMed PMID: 21643514; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3104729.

9 Brugiavini, A., Pasini, G. and E. Trevisan (2013) "The direct impact of maternity benefits on leave taking: evidence from complete fertility histories", Advances in life course research, 18: 46-67

10 Rossin M. The effects of maternity leave on children's birth and infant health

outcomes in the United States. J Health Econ. 2011 Mar;30(2):221-39. doi:

10.1016/j.jhealeco.2011.01.005. Epub 2011 Jan 18. PubMed PMID: 21300415; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3698961.

11 Rossin-Slater M, Ruhm CJ, Waldfogel J. The effects of California's paid family

leave program on mothers' leave-taking and subsequent labor market outcomes. J

Policy Anal Manage. 2013;32(2):224-45. PubMed PMID: 23547324; PubMed Central

PMCID: PMC3701456.

12 Ruhm CJ. Policies to assist parents with young children. Future Child. 2011

Fall;21(2):37-68. PubMed PMID: 22013628; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3202345.

13 Berkman LF, Buxton O, Ertel K, Okechukwu C. Managers' practices related to

work-family balance predict employee cardiovascular risk and sleep duration in

extended care settings. J Occup Health Psychol. 2010 Jul;15(3):316-29. doi:

10.1037/a0019721. PubMed PMID: 20604637; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3526833.

14 Heymann SJ. The Widening Gap: Why Working Families Are in Jeopardy and What Can Be Done About It. New York: Basic Books, 2000.

Found on

Very High Blood Lead Levels Among Adults — United States, 2002–2011

Over the past several decades there has been a remarkable reduction in environmental sources of lead, improved protection from occupational lead exposure, and an overall decreasing trend in the prevalence of elevated blood lead levels (BLLs) in U.S. adults. As a result, the U.S. national BLL geometric mean among adults was 1.2 µg/dL during 2009–2010 (1).

Nonetheless, lead exposures continue to occur at unacceptable levels (2). Current research continues to find that BLLs previously considered harmless can have harmful effects in adults, such as decreased renal function and increased risk for hypertension and essential tremor at BLLs µg/dL (3–5). CDC has designated 10 µg/dL as the reference BLL for adults; levels ≥10 µg/dL are considered elevated (2).

CDC's Adult Blood Lead Epidemiology and Surveillance (ABLES) program tracks elevated BLLs among adults in the United States (2).

In contrast to the CDC reference level, prevailing Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) lead standards allow workers removed from lead exposure to return to lead work when their BLL falls below 40 µg/dL (6). During 2002–2011, ABLES identified 11,536 adults with very high BLLs (≥40 µg/dL).

Persistent very high BLLs (≥40 µg/dL in ≥2 years) were found among 2,210 (19%) of these adults. Occupational exposures accounted for 7,076 adults with very high BLLs (91% of adults with known exposure source) and 1,496...

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Found on

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Exposure to Shift Work as a Risk Factor for Diabetes

Today's post was shared by Safe Healthy Workers and comes from jbr.sagepub.com

Using telephone survey data from 1111 retired older adults (≥65 years; 634 male, 477 female), we tested the hypothesis that exposure to shift work might result in increased self-reported diabetes. Five shift work exposure bins were considered: 0 years, 1-7 years, 8-14 years, 15-20 years, and 20 years. Shift work exposed groups showed an increased proportion of self-reported diabetes (χ² = 22.32, p < 0.001), with odds ratios (ORs) of about 2 when compared to the 0-year group. The effect remained significant after adjusting for gender and body mass index (BMI) (OR ≥ 1.4; χ² = 10.78, p < 0.05). There was a significant shift work exposure effect on BMI (χ² = 80.70, p < 0.001) but no significant gender effect (χ² = 0.37, p 0.50).

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Found on

Copyright

Thursday, December 5, 2013

President Obama Statement on the Benefits of the Affordable Care Act

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

US Labor Department seeks public comment on agency standards to improve chemical safety

Rare Cancer Treatments, Cleared by F.D.A. but Not Subject to Scrutiny

CDC releases new findings and prevention tools to improve food safety in restaurants

December 3rd is International Day of Persons with Disabilities