NORTHERN CALIFORNIA – It's that time of the year again, the NFL Super Bowl, with all the attendant festivities and Super Bowl parties.
At the same time, the flu virus is shredding defenses across 41 states, in fact more than 4,600 people around the country have been hospitalized with flu complications since October.
But the American Red Cross has a series of tips to defend against the flu during Super Bowl festivities.
They include:
To can see the whole playbook visit www.redcross.org/news/article/Seven-Ways-To-Sideline-the-Flu-at-Your-Super-Bowl-Party .
More information about how to help keep you and your loved ones protected from the flu can be found at www.redcross.org/FluTips .
All those people who've been telling us for years that we should eat more healthy foods and cut our calories – stop, take a moment and celebrate.
It appears that we actually listened.
A new, extensive study from The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Gillings School of Global Public Health says that it wasn't the Great Recession or any economic downturn that created a leveling of U.S. obesity rates (with some declines in certain subpopulations), as other scholars have suggested.
Rather, the leveling and decline started well before that in good economic times and has continued.
The reason is not economics as much as it is likely a result of more information and efforts aimed at producing healthier food choices and eating habits.
The study, titled “Turning point for US diets? Recessionary effects or behavioral shifts in foods purchased and consumed” was recently posted at the online site of The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
“We found U.S. consumers changed their eating and food purchasing habits significantly beginning in 2003, when the economy was robust, and continued these habits to the present,” said Shu Wen Ng, assistant professor of nutrition at UNC's Gillings School of Global Public Health and the study's first author.
“These changes in food habits persist independent of economic conditions linked with the Great Recession or food prices,” Ng said. “The calorie consumption was declining at a rate of about 34 calories less per year among children aged 2-18 between 2003 and 2010 (vs. only 14 kcal/day among adults decline per year). The declines in food purchases after adjusting for all the economic changes was also at a rate of 34 kcal/capita per year among households with children between 2000 and 2011.”
Ng adds that this dramatic turn in dietary behavior is more likely the outcome of sustained and persistent public health efforts aimed at raising awareness about the importance of healthy eating, providing better information about food choices, and discouraging unhealthy dietary choices.
The researchers used both nationally representative dietary intake data along with longitudinal data on daily food purchases from hundreds of thousands of Americans.
The study samples included combined datasets from the NHANES study, which covered households comprising 13,422 children and 10,791 adults from 2003-2011; and the Nielsen Homescan Panel, which contains food purchase data from 57,298 households with children and 108,932 households without children.
The data show that calories declined more among children than adults and that the proportional decline in calories was greatest among calories from beverages.
Researchers then turned their analysis to examining how much of this decline was the result of the Great Recession and the year of large increases in food prices preceding the recession.
If we looked only at the impact of the increases in unemployment related to the Great Recession, the study showed that each 1 percent increase in the unemployment rate in the area where respondents lived was associated with a 2-4 kcal/capita/day increase in calories purchased. This is small relative to the major declines that occurred over time.
“This analysis is significant as we found the largest declines were among households with children. However these declines did not occur uniformly. There were no significant declines in caloric intake observed among adolescents (12-18y), non-Hispanic black children and those whose parents did not complete high school,” said Barry Popkin, Distinguished Professor of nutrition at UNC Gillings. “This suggests that certain subpopulations are still unable or unwilling to make these dietary changes.”
While Popkin noted that the specific contributors for these changes in behavior are not quantifiable, he suggested that greater attention by the public health community and journalists to obesity overall, particularly to soft drinks and other high-calorie sugary beverages and the changes made by food companies or retailers may have produced significant rises in the awareness among consumers about the role of food, particularly when it comes to caloric beverages in affecting obesity and health.
SACRAMENTO – State Sen. Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa) announced she has been appointed to the Senate Health Committee by Senate Rules.
The nine member committee has legislative jurisdiction over bills relating to public health, alcohol and drug abuse, mental health, health insurance and managed care, and related institutions.
Of particular importance this year, the committee will oversee California's implementation of the federal Affordable Healthcare Act which requires uninsured individuals to obtain health insurance by March 31.
“This appointment will allow me to continue my advocacy for women, children and families and many other important policy considerations for my diverse constituency,” said Evans. “I am pleased to serve with Dr. Hernandez on this important assignment.”
Evans represents the Second Senatorial District, including all or portions of the counties of Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, Marin (caretaker), Napa, Solano and Sonoma.
SACRAMENTO – Assemblywoman Mariko Yamada on Tuesday (D-Davis) introduced AB 1553, which would protect all women by prohibiting long-term care insurance (LTCI) providers from charging women higher premium rates than men for the same coverage.
“Gender discrimination has broad public policy implications,” Yamada said. “Women earn less than men in their lifetime and accumulate less wealth, so charging women more for the same policies is neither a fair nor effective solution to covering the industry’s costs. Pricing based on life expectancy sets an extremely dangerous precedent.”
Because women generally live longer than men, they depend on LTCI benefits more and often reduce men’s dependence on LTCI by serving as their caregivers.
According to the American Association of Long-Term Care Insurance, almost 70 percent of women age 75 or older are widowed, divorced, or never married, leaving them less likely to have spouses to provide care for them and more likely to reside in assisted living and nursing facilities. Currently in California, 2 out of 3 nursing home residents are women.
Long-term care insurance reimburses policyholders for long-term services and supports, including personal and custodial care, in a variety of settings such as in the home or at a skilled nursing facility.
The Affordable Care Act prohibits insurers from charging women higher premiums for health insurance policies, but LTCI in California is classified as disability insurance, so it is not bound by that law.
“Women have always had a hard time figuring out how to pay for long-term care insurance from their lower incomes and resources. Gender discrimination will force even more women out of the market, shifting the cost of their care to their families and the state's Medicaid program,” said Bonnie Burns with California Health Advocates.
Without AB 1553, rates for women could rise as much as 40%. Montana and Colorado have already acted to prohibit gender based pricing for LTCI.
AB 1553 is co-authored by Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Assemblymember Cheryl Brown and Assemblymember Susan Talamantes Eggman and is expected to be referred to the Assembly Insurance Committee in February.