As Rob Gould, President and CEO of Partnership for Prevention, has stated, “the top priority for prevention spending should be tobacco control.” And what is the best way to focus our tobacco control efforts? The answer is youth. By focusing on youth we can prevent this addictive behavior before it starts.
The need to address youth smoking is pressing. CDC published a report in last week’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) titled, “Cigarette Use Among High School Students–United States, 1991-2009,” which brings to light to the slowing progress in youth smoking prevention.
The CDC studied cigarette smoking trends among high school students in the United States by analyzing data from the 1991-2009 Youth Risk Behavior Surveys (YRBS), which are conducted every two years among high school students in grades ninth through twelve. When looking at three different variables: ever smoked cigarettes (whether a student had ever smoked, even just one puff), current cigarette use (whether a student had smoked at least one day in the past thirty days), and current frequent cigarette use (whether a student had smoked at least twenty days or more during the past thirty days), researchers found that high school smoking rates dropped rapidly in the late 1990s. However, the rate of decline substantially slowed down after 2003 and has continued to only decline very gradually since then. When analyzing data from different racial and gender groups for current cigarette use, rates also declined rapidly in the late 1990s and then either continued to decline gradually or leveled off after 2003 for all subgroups except for black female students, for whom current cigarette use continued to decline after 1999 without slowing.
These slowing rates have led to our failure to meet the Healthy People 2010 national health objective to reduce the prevalence of current cigarette use among high school students to 16% or less. It is noteworthy that the 2009 YRBS survey was administered before the federal tax increase for cigarettes and before the Family Smoking Prevention Act went into effect, both of which aim to reduce youth smoking. However, much work needs to be done if we are to address these slowing declines in current cigarette smoking trends among high school students in the United States.
Partnership for Prevention agrees with the CDC’s recommendations for “reductions in advertising, promotions, and commercial availability of tobacco products… combined with expanded counter-advertising mass media campaigns and… other well-documented and effective strategies (e.g., higher prices for tobacco products through increases in excise taxes, tobacco free environments, programs that promote changes in social norms, and comprehensive communitywide and school-based tobacco-use prevention policies).”
Additionally, in a recent column in Kaiser Health News, “The Prevention Dilemma,” Rob Gould states that tobacco control should be the top priority for health reform funding and youth prevention placed at the top of the list. He argues for a “nationwide public education campaign modeled on the highly successful Truth® campaign that dissuades thousands of young people from initiating tobacco use and encourages smoking cessation.”
The MMWR brings disappointing news in terms of tobacco control, yet hopefully can be the driving force to focus our public health and policies and resources on preventing youth smoking and make this a healthier nation.
Katie Burggraf
Partnership for Prevention Intern
Showing posts with label Kaiser Health News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kaiser Health News. Show all posts
Monday, 12 July 2010
Wednesday, 26 May 2010
The Prevention Dilemma: DHHS Secretary Urged To Seize Opportunity to Impact Public Health
Few would argue the importance of increasing funding for community prevention. That’s the reason prevention advocates were so delighted Congress established a Prevention and Public Health Fund to “provide for expanded and sustained national investment in prevention and public health programs to improve health and help restrain the rate of growth in private and public sector health care costs.” The fund makes available $500 million in new spending in FY2010; the fiscal year ending September 30. There is a tough decision ahead to spend a great deal of money in a short period of time.
There are many worthy ideas vying for DHHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ attention. She is the official charged by the new law in allocating the funds “for prevention, wellness and public health activities…”
How should the Secretary make the initial trust fund allocation given that so many deserving programs are asking for a slice from the pie?
In an Op Ed (“The Prevention Dilemma”) written for Kaiser Health News, Partnership for Prevention CEO, Dr. Robert Gould, answers the tough question.
“There will never be enough federal money to address every prevention need. What the secretary needs to decide is whether there is sufficient political courage to concentrate early prevention funding to deliver a knockout blow to the leading cause of premature death in the country? … The criteria for prioritizing this specific funding should be simple: what are the evidence-based programs that are primed and ready to go, that are proven to work, that we know will move us toward a healthier society and that we can be sure will deliver a large, measurable return on investment? By these criteria, the top priority for prevention spending should be tobacco control.”
Gould recommends DHHS focus their resources on three well tested, evidence-based components::
1) Nationwide public education campaign modeled on the highly successful Truth® campaign that dissuades thousands of young people from initiating tobacco use and encourages smoking cessation;
2) Fully funding quit lines that provide direct cessation services and significantly improve quit rates efficiently and effectively, especially among disadvantaged populations served by Medicaid; and
3) Support for existing state and community-based tobacco control programs that reach people where they live, work, play and worship.”
The Partnership leader believes the goal of this potentially historic investment is simple and most important, achievable.. Gould concludes:
“If community-based tobacco control programs could be brought to scale nationally, we have a genuine opportunity to drive smoking rates into single digits. The rapid and enduring payoff, in lives and money saved, is there for the taking. It’s a rare opportunity. I urge Secretary Sebelius to seize it.”
Sounds like good advice. Do you agree?
Ripley Forbes
Director, Government Affairs
Partnership for Prevention
There are many worthy ideas vying for DHHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ attention. She is the official charged by the new law in allocating the funds “for prevention, wellness and public health activities…”
How should the Secretary make the initial trust fund allocation given that so many deserving programs are asking for a slice from the pie?
In an Op Ed (“The Prevention Dilemma”) written for Kaiser Health News, Partnership for Prevention CEO, Dr. Robert Gould, answers the tough question.
“There will never be enough federal money to address every prevention need. What the secretary needs to decide is whether there is sufficient political courage to concentrate early prevention funding to deliver a knockout blow to the leading cause of premature death in the country? … The criteria for prioritizing this specific funding should be simple: what are the evidence-based programs that are primed and ready to go, that are proven to work, that we know will move us toward a healthier society and that we can be sure will deliver a large, measurable return on investment? By these criteria, the top priority for prevention spending should be tobacco control.”
Gould recommends DHHS focus their resources on three well tested, evidence-based components::
1) Nationwide public education campaign modeled on the highly successful Truth® campaign that dissuades thousands of young people from initiating tobacco use and encourages smoking cessation;
2) Fully funding quit lines that provide direct cessation services and significantly improve quit rates efficiently and effectively, especially among disadvantaged populations served by Medicaid; and
3) Support for existing state and community-based tobacco control programs that reach people where they live, work, play and worship.”
The Partnership leader believes the goal of this potentially historic investment is simple and most important, achievable.. Gould concludes:
“If community-based tobacco control programs could be brought to scale nationally, we have a genuine opportunity to drive smoking rates into single digits. The rapid and enduring payoff, in lives and money saved, is there for the taking. It’s a rare opportunity. I urge Secretary Sebelius to seize it.”
Sounds like good advice. Do you agree?
Ripley Forbes
Director, Government Affairs
Partnership for Prevention
Tuesday, 4 August 2009
Insurers: Free Tests Are OK, But Mandates?
U.S. health plans "appear to be getting the message" that they should offer free tests to encourage prevention, but they aren't rushing to embrace a proposed government mandate of first-dollar coverage of clinical preventive services.
Phil Galewitz of Kaiser Health News talked to insurance officials to get their take on first-dollar coverage.
"Aetna, one of the nation’s largest insurers, this year began introducing health plans for small employers that charge patients no co-pays for preventive care such as routine physicals, vision and gynecological exams, and well-child visits," Galewitz wrote.
"The company says it is pricing that new plan the same or nearly the same as what the existing plans would have cost, although it has increased co-pays on certain other benefits.
"Aetna spokesman Mohit Ghose on Friday said the company strongly supports efforts to promote prevention in health reform. He declined to say whether the company would support a government mandate eliminating copayments for preventive services.
"America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s top lobbying group, opposes the mandate, said spokesman Robert Zirkelbach. He cited the need to give insurers flexibility in designing benefit packages.
"Wellpoint, the largest Blue Cross and Blue Shield company, said it sees the benefit for waiving cost sharing but doesn’t want the government mandate.
“'Many of WellPoint’s affiliated health plans’ benefits already offer preventive services with no co-pay or deductible as we feel these are important services,' said spokeswoman Cheryl Leamon. 'We also believe it is important for our members and others to have the choice in the type of health plan and benefits that fit their needs.'”
President Obama recently cited "no cost sharing for preventive services" as one of eight protections he wanted a health reform bill to provide.
The bills currently working their way through Senate and House committees all mandate Medicaid coverage of clinical preventive services. The House Energy and Commerce Committee last week approved an amendment by Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., that would prohibit cost-sharing for clinical preventive services provided to Medicaid patients.
Phil Galewitz of Kaiser Health News talked to insurance officials to get their take on first-dollar coverage.
"Aetna, one of the nation’s largest insurers, this year began introducing health plans for small employers that charge patients no co-pays for preventive care such as routine physicals, vision and gynecological exams, and well-child visits," Galewitz wrote.
"The company says it is pricing that new plan the same or nearly the same as what the existing plans would have cost, although it has increased co-pays on certain other benefits.
"Aetna spokesman Mohit Ghose on Friday said the company strongly supports efforts to promote prevention in health reform. He declined to say whether the company would support a government mandate eliminating copayments for preventive services.
"America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s top lobbying group, opposes the mandate, said spokesman Robert Zirkelbach. He cited the need to give insurers flexibility in designing benefit packages.
"Wellpoint, the largest Blue Cross and Blue Shield company, said it sees the benefit for waiving cost sharing but doesn’t want the government mandate.
“'Many of WellPoint’s affiliated health plans’ benefits already offer preventive services with no co-pay or deductible as we feel these are important services,' said spokeswoman Cheryl Leamon. 'We also believe it is important for our members and others to have the choice in the type of health plan and benefits that fit their needs.'”
President Obama recently cited "no cost sharing for preventive services" as one of eight protections he wanted a health reform bill to provide.
The bills currently working their way through Senate and House committees all mandate Medicaid coverage of clinical preventive services. The House Energy and Commerce Committee last week approved an amendment by Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., that would prohibit cost-sharing for clinical preventive services provided to Medicaid patients.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)