Chicago tries to close life expectancy gap
A new city campaign aims to close the whopping 11-year life expectancy gap between Black Chicagoans and their non-Black peers.
The big picture: As the city enters an era where its racial makeup is nearly 30% white, 30% Black and 30% Latino, Axios is starting a yearlong series examining racial equity in the city across several metrics from opportunities and perks to health disparities and disadvantages.
Backstory: The life expectancy gap wasn't always this big. In 2010, the disparity between Black and non-Black Chicagoans was 8.4 years.
In 2020, Black life expectancy in Chicago fell below 70 for the first time in decades, driven largely by COVID deaths.
During the pandemic in 2021, the gap peaked at 12.7 years before settling at 11.4 in 2022.
Across all races the average life expectancy is 77 years.
Driving the news: The "Healthy Chicago 2025 Strategic Plan" focuses on the root causes of health inequity including economics, housing and access to health care while zeroing in on the primary drivers of Black mortality, like chronic disease and opioid overdose, and the neighborhoods with the highest rates.
Zoom in: Chicago Department of Public Health is concentrating on these neighborhoods with a life expectancy much lower than the city's 77-year average.
What they're saying:"Preventing premature mortality from chronic diseases (namely heart disease), violence, and opioid overdose offer the most room for progress in reducing the racial life expectancy gap," CDPH commissioner Olusimbo Ige tells Axios.
"Reversing these trends will require consistent, long-term commitment to increase access and uptake of health protective behaviors and resources. We have already seen significant reductions in opioid overdose and violence, and we want to build on these successes."
The cost: While the report doesn't quote a specific cost of the program, it cites the use of hundreds of millions in funds for health-related projects including sports programs, alternative policing, homelessness services, prison re-entry programs and more.
Between the lines: Even before the pandemic, life expectancy in some largely Black neighborhoods was falling, in part, due to opioid deaths. Declines from 2010 to 2019 included:
Englewood: 3.3 years.
East Garfield Park 3.23 years.
Yes, but: COVID accelerated the drop further, seeing life expectancy declines from 2019 to 2020 of 5.84 years in West Garfield Park and 4.2 years in North Lawndale.
The intrigue: While Black communities saw an overall 4.6-year life expectancy drop from 2019 to 2020, Latinos saw the biggest decline of 6.3 years.
Most Black Chicagoans who died of COVID were people 70 years old and older, but at least 50% of Latino COVID deaths were in people aged 40-69, which CDPH attributes largely to a high representation among essential workers.
Here is how CDPH is trying to address the disparity by cause of death:
Chronic disease: Strategies include tobacco prevention and cessation programs through community partnerships.
Using the PlayStreets initiative to increase youth and adult physical activity.
Increasing healthy food access and navigation.
Increasing health literacy and promoting risk reduction resources.
Violence prevention: Strategies include "a proactive 2025 summer violence prevention plan."
Investing in community greenspace by cleaning vacant lots and promoting tree plantings.
Hospital-based violence interventions.
Opioid overdose reductions: Strategies include expanding access to treatment and recovery services and making overdose reversing drug Naloxone more available.
Surprising stat: In 2020, the opioid-related overdose death rate among Black males aged 45-64 years was six times higher than the rate among White males of the same age group.
Infectious disease: Strategies include modernizing public health surveillance systems and approaches to enhance rapid response.
Identifying highest-risk community areas.
Tailoring vaccine messaging for communities of color.
Promoting the uptake of the HIV services.
Infant and maternal health: Strategies include hyperlocal outreach to promote safe sleep practices.
Understanding barriers to prenatal care and creating a media campaign for improvement.
Modernizing the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program.
Mental health: Strategies include improving the city's Mental Health Equity Network and Crisis Assistance Response and Engagement program.
Developing "a housing to recovery continuum of care" for unhoused people and those with behavioral health conditions.
Federal effect: Ige acknowledges that Trump administration policies restricting funding for for equity-based work could affect federal support for the plan, but says, CDPH "intends to deploy programs and resources to serve the needs of Chicagoans with a priority on the people and places most impacted by adverse health outcomes."
What's next: CDPH says it should have updated life expectancy numbers this spring.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
When Letting Your Mind Wander Helps You Learn
While you do the dishes or drive to work, your mind is likely not on the task at hand; perhaps you're composing a grocery list or daydreaming about retiring in Italy. But research published in the Journal of Neuroscience suggests you might be taking in more than you think. During a simple task that requires minimal attention, mind wandering may actually help people learn probabilistic patterns that let them perform the task better. 'The idea to study the potentially beneficial influence of mind wandering on information processing occurred to us during the COVID pandemic, when we had plenty of time to mind wander,' says Péter Simor, lead author of the recent study and a psychology researcher at Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest. Study participants practiced a simple task in which they pressed keyboard buttons corresponding to the direction of arrows that lit up on a screen. But there were patterns hidden within the task that the participants were unaware of—and they learned these patterns without consciously noticing them. The researchers found that when participants reported letting their minds wander, they adapted to the task's hidden patterns significantly faster. [Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter] 'This is an exciting and important piece of work, especially because the authors opted for a nondemanding task to check how [mind wandering] would affect performance and learning,' says Athena Demertzi, a cognitive and clinical neuroscientist at the University of Liège in Belgium. Previous related research focused more on long and demanding tasks, she says—on which zoning out is typically shown to have a negative effect. But the results are not clear-cut, says Jonathan Smallwood, a psychology researcher at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario. 'I don't think that this means the spontaneous mind-wandering episodes themselves cause implicit learning to occur,' he says. 'Rather both emerge at the same time when people go into a particular state.' Neither Smallwood nor Demertzi was involved in the new study. Simor, who studies sleep, was interested in whether participants' mind wandering displayed any neural hallmarks of dozing off. Using electroencephalogram recordings, the team showed that in those test periods, participants' brains produced more of the slow waves that are dominant during sleep. Perhaps, the researchers say, mind wandering is like a form of light sleep that provides some of that state's learning benefits. To better understand whether mind wandering might compensate for lost sleep, Simor and his colleagues next plan to study narcolepsy and sleep deprivation. 'We know that people spend significant amounts of time not focused on what they are doing,' Smallwood says. 'The authors' work is important because it helps us understand how reasonably complex forms of behavior can continue when people are focused on other things—and that even though our thoughts were elsewhere, the external behavior can still leave its mark on the person.'
Scientific American
43 minutes ago
- Scientific American
How RFK, Jr.'s Dismissal of CDC Immunization Committee Panelists Will Affect America's Vaccine Access
In a striking move on Monday, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., secretary of the U.S. Department Health and Human Services, announced the dismissal of all sitting public health experts of an independent vaccine committee that counsels the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, the group holds public meetings to review the latest scientific evidence on vaccine safety and effectiveness and to make clinical recommendations for people in the U.S.—guidance that greatly influences access to disease-preventing shots. In his announcement in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Kennedy— who has a long history of as an antivaccine activist —framed the firings as taking 'a bold step in restoring public trust by totally reconstituting the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices.' He also alleged there were 'persistent conflicts of interest' among committee members. Public health experts had been bracing for such a move. 'This was everybody's fear about having RFK, Jr., as our HHS secretary,' says Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist and director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. ACIP's decisions shape immunization schedules —affecting which groups will be recommended vaccines, when and how often they should get them and whether health insurance will cover costs. The panelists hold three open meetings each year to assess and vote on the clinical use of various existing and new vaccines, including ones that protect people against pneumonia, chicken pox, shingles, measles, mumps and rubella (MMR), polio, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza and COVID. According to the agenda of ACIP's next meeting, slated for June 25–27, members are expected to vote on highly anticipated recommendations that would influence the next winter respiratory illness season—including guidance for COVID, flu and RSV vaccines for adults and children. In response to various questions about the plans for ACIP, an HHS spokesperson directed Scientific American to the agency's statement about the announcement and said the committee is still scheduled to meet on June 25–27. According to the statement, new committee members are currently under consideration. The secretary of health and human services gives the final approval of newly appointed ACIP members. 'I cannot imagine that they could compose a new ACIP that has been sufficiently vetted in [less than] three weeks,' Nuzzo says. 'One of the reasons why there's so much concern right now is that changing the composition of ACIP, potentially stacking it with antivaccine members, as many fear could happen, could make it harder for Americans to access vaccines that they want, that their doctors think are beneficial for them.' Scientific American spoke with Nuzzo about how the ACIP dismissal may affect vaccine policy and access and people's health. [ An edited transcript of the interview follows. ] What is the primary role of ACIP? There are a few features of the committee that make it important. One is expertise. The membership of the committee is somewhat diverse to represent a range of expert backgrounds because when you're talking about vaccines, there are pediatric issues, adult issues—a lot of different types of expertise need to be brought to bear. It's also an independent group, meaning that it's not populated by any particular political party. ACIP's members are outside experts who are appointed through a very transparent, open process, up to a fixed term. These are independent, nonpolitical actors who also have their conflicts of interests managed. Who they get money from is public knowledge. [ Editor's Note: Members withdraw themselves from deliberations and voting on any product for which they have disclosed a conflict of interest. ] How does ACIP make its decisions? During the meeting, [the members] have documents, they have people giving presentations. Sometimes those presentations are given by government scientists who have reviewed evidence, or sometimes [the members will look at] evidence from studies on vaccines. All of the meetings are open: either you could show up in public or, usually, [see a] broadcast on the web. So all of the data that are used in the discussion about vaccines and vaccine policies are made public, and they are reviewed. And not only are they reviewed, but the rationale and the interpretation of those data are public. So the public can see, interrogate, and vet the conclusions and the data that the committees use to base their conclusions. It's a very open [process], and that openness adheres to a governance structure has existed throughout multiple presidential administrations, multiple political parties presiding [over] it. It's also important to note that the CDC director does not have to accept ACIP's recommendations—the CDC director usually does, but the CDC director does not have to. My worry is not just that politics enters into ACIP; it's also just that 'Will the will of ACIP be adhered to?' How do ACIP's recommendations affect people? ACIP is one of two key advisory committees that serve the U.S. government related to vaccines [the other is the Food and Drug Administration's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) ]. ACIP makes recommendations regarding vaccine policies and utilization—and those recommendations are important, not just because they represent the scientific consensus that exists at the time but also because they usually influence people's access to vaccines. One real concern is: if ACIP doesn't recommend a vaccine, insurers may decide not to cover the cost , and some of these vaccines have important out-of-pocket costs. Some of us can afford that, but a lot of us can't. And so there are real issues about who is going to be able to benefit from vaccines, and it creates a real inequity. It may also have an effect on the market and companies' willingness to incur the risks of making vaccines. Vaccines are not like making a car. There are a discovery process and research-and-development process that have to occur. If vaccine manufacturers fear that they're not going to be able to sell vaccines, that people aren't going to be able to access them, then they may simply decide not to make them. They might decide that the U.S. market is not where they want to invest their resources and may decide to instead serve other countries. So it's not just that ACIP provides advice that the American public can use to make their own vaccine decisions but also [that it] is often the basis by which [vaccine] providers and insurers make vaccines available. So it's not just about information; it's also about access. What does this action potentially mean for future vaccine policies? I'm worried about all vaccines at this point. I can't rule out that that isn't just the first warning shot. Some of the rationale around who should or should not get COVID boosters, in my view, feels like an opening to removing the availability of flu vaccines. We've seen the secretary of HHS wrongly malign MMR vaccines amid one of the worst measles outbreaks the U.S. has seen in decades. So I fear that everything's fair game.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
AstraZeneca (LSE:AZN) Partners In Quantum Leap For Drug Development Efficiency
AstraZeneca recently entered into a collaborative research initiative with IonQ, AWS, and NVIDIA, focused on quantum computing innovations in healthcare, which may have added weight to the company's 5% price gain over the past month. Additionally, AstraZeneca's series of product announcements and partnerships, including EU approvals and US designations for various drugs, could have bolstered investor confidence. While the overall market experienced a rise amid positive trade talk sentiments and recovering tech stocks, AstraZeneca's sustained focus on advancements in precision medicine and a robust drug pipeline likely supported its recent positive performance. We've spotted 2 weaknesses for AstraZeneca you should be aware of. Uncover 18 companies that survived and thrived after COVID and have the right ingredients to survive Trump's tariffs. The recent collaboration between AstraZeneca and leading tech firms like IonQ, AWS, and NVIDIA underscores the company's commitment to leverage advanced technologies for innovation in precision medicine. This could positively impact AstraZeneca's revenue and earnings forecasts, as quantum computing may enhance drug discovery processes, potentially boosting the company's competitive edge. The introduction of approved drugs such as Beyonttra and strategic moves in emerging markets and R&D centers, like in Beijing, could further drive revenue and market share growth. Over the past five years, AstraZeneca's total shareholder return, including dividends, was 46.03%. In contrast, despite recent gains, its one-year share return lagged behind the UK market return of 4.9% and the UK Pharmaceuticals industry decline of 8.9%. This suggests that while AstraZeneca has experienced strong overall long-term performance, recent market conditions have presented challenges. Considering analysts' consensus, the current share price of £107.28 reflects a discount to the fair value price target of £133.57, indicating that the market may underrate AstraZeneca's future potential. If the positive implications of ongoing projects materialize, it might align market expectations with analysts' optimistic forecasts. Investors may look to these innovations and strategic maneuvers as catalysts for substantial growth, supporting the expectations that revenue will grow to $65.3 billion and earnings to $13.5 billion by 2028. Gain insights into AstraZeneca's historical outcomes by reviewing our past performance report. This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Companies discussed in this article include LSE:AZN. This article was originally published by Simply Wall St. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team@ Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
