More Black babies are dying than white infants. Scientists are blaming healthcare inequality
Although the disparity in the number of overall deaths reported between Black and white Americans has narrowed over the course of the last 75 years, researchers say that the same does not hold true for infants.
Black infants are dying at twice the rate of white infants – and it's largely thanks to healthcare inequality.
'This is like a red alarm,' Harvard University associated professor Dr. Soroush Saghafian explained.
'Our findings are saying: Look, we could have saved five million Black Americans if they had the same things as white Americans have,' he told The Harvard Gazette.
The authors analyzed mortality data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, calculating life expectancy, mortality rates, and years of potential life lost for both white and Black Americas. Saghafian was an author of the research published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.
Their analysis found that there was a 20.4 percent increase in life expectancy for Black Americans and a 13 percent rise for white Americans, although Black adults still have an 18 percent higher mortality rate.
While the mortality rates for both Black and white infants have improved, the disparity between races has worsened. For Black infants in the 1950s, the mortality rate was 92 percent higher than white infants. Today, that percentage has risen to 115 percent.
While Saghafian noted that the purpose of the study was not to examine the reason for their findings, he stated that the main reasons for excess mortalities are medical.
'Our work raises the critical question of why, over seven decades post-World War II, we still haven't figured out a solution for this enormous problem,' he said.
The American healthcare system has long been under scrutiny for its astronomical costs and hurdles to patient care. A new study released Wednesday from the West Health Institute has found that the inability to pay for healthcare in the U.S. has reached a new high.
More than a third of Americans – or an estimated 91 million people – report that they could not access quality healthcare if they needed it, according to the latest West Health-Gallup Healthcare Affordability Index.
Rates were higher among Black and Hispanic Americans, with 46 percent of Black Americans reporting that they would be unable to afford quality healthcare.
The center called for policy action - so did Saghafian.
'As I mentioned, we didn't go into the details of the causes, and I think that needs a lot more attention from both researchers and public policy and public health authorities. At the same time, our findings raise important questions for both researchers and authorities,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
2 days ago
- NBC News
Celebrity breast cancer announcements highlight rising rates in young women
Several young celebrities have announced breast cancer diagnoses in the past year — a public reminder that rates are rising among women under 50 in the U.S. Pop singer Jessie J, 37, revealed this week on Instagram that she has early-stage breast cancer and plans to undergo surgery later this month. Katie Thurston, former star of 'The Bachelorette,' has documented her journey with Stage 4 breast cancer on social media after being diagnosed earlier this year at age 34. And actor Danielle Fishel, known for her role on the '90s sitcom 'Boy Meets World,' revealed her diagnosis at age 43 to fans last summer. New breast cancer diagnoses in young women have gone up considerably in the last decade. From 2012 to 2021 — the most recent decade of data — the rate increased 1.4% annually in women under 50, compared with 0.7% annually in women 50 and up. The trend applies to all racial or ethnic groups, particularly Asian American and Pacific Islander women under 50, for whom diagnoses have risen nearly 50% since 2000. Black women have the highest rate of breast cancer before age 40 and are most likely to die of the disease. Women under 40 generally aren't advised to get mammograms unless they have a strong risk factor for breast cancer, such as a family history or genetic mutation. In that case, the American Cancer Society recommends mammograms starting at age 30, plus an annual breast MRI. Several breast cancer doctors said younger patients and their clinicians should be careful not to dismiss symptoms such as a lump or nipple discharge. 'The thought was always, if you had a change in your breast but you were a young woman, it was probably nothing,' said Dr. Rani Bansal, an assistant professor at the Duke University School of Medicine. 'As we're seeing more and more younger women get diagnosed … we need to take these cases seriously.' Dr. Oluwadamilola Fayanju, chief of breast surgery at Penn Medicine, said her youngest patient diagnosed with cancer was just 17. She recommended that young women with symptoms go to a center that's experienced in breast imaging. For women with an elevated risk of breast cancer, she said, 'it may be better for you to be connected with a dedicated breast provider who can keep a close eye on you and do regular exams even well before 40.' Breast cancer in young women is often more aggressive As treatment options for breast cancer have improved, the overall mortality rate among younger women with the disease declined from 2010 to 2020, according to research presented in April at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting in Chicago. But young women are still more likely to be diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer compared with older women. One reason could be that they're not getting screened as much, so it's harder to catch cases early. Young women are also more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer, which tends to spread fast and has fewer treatment options. Dr. Virginia Borges, a professor of medical oncology at the University of Colorado Cancer Center, said all women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 35 have a higher likelihood of the cancer spreading to the rest of their bodies, for reasons doctors don't fully understand. 'It's like this great big puzzle of all these different factors that can contribute to why we see these cancers behave the way they do,' Borges said. Bansal said doctors are hoping to learn more about which treatments are better suited to women under 50. 'We need more data to better tailor our treatments towards younger women,' she said. 'A lot of the studies that are done are in older women.' Lifestyle, environment, hormones There are several mysteries as to why younger women are diagnosed with breast cancer at higher rates. Doctors generally agree that multiple factors are at play, including lifestyle, hormones and environmental exposures. Diets high in ultra-processed foods or a lack of physical activity can lead to obesity, which in turn elevates one's cancer risk. Women in their 30s and 40s have also increased their alcohol consumption in recent decades, and drinking alcohol is linked to breast cancer. Exposure to environmental toxins such as air pollution, forever chemicals or microplastics could also play a role. 'By the time women now in their 40s were babies, every single baby bottle had BPA. Everyone had Teflon pans in their home. Everyone was spraying Scotchgard around their home,' said Suzanne Price, CEO of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, a nonprofit that works to eliminate exposure to toxic chemicals. Several researchers said more data is needed to definitively draw that link. 'Hopefully within the next few years, we should be having more insight into how those early life exposures drive the risk of breast cancer,' said Dr. Adetunji Toriola, a professor of surgery at Washington University School of Medicine. Some studies have suggested that chemical hair straighteners, which are predominantly used by Black women, may be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. Fayanju said the straighteners 'can potentially have effects on our ability to process hormones in our body and how those hormones then interact with cells in our breasts, which have receptors for those hormones.' Changes in women's reproductive lives might have some effect as well. Girls in the U.S. are starting their periods slightly earlier in life compared with decades ago. That may increase the length of time in which they're exposed to higher levels of estrogen — a hormone that in some cases can feed cancer cells. A study last year found an increase in the number of women ages 20 to 49 diagnosed with breast cancer that was responsive to estrogen. Many women are also delaying childbirth until their 30s and 40s, which increases the risk of postpartum breast cancer — cancers that occur within five to 10 years of giving birth that appear to be linked to changes in the breasts during that time. Borges estimated that there are about 18,000 new cases of postpartum breast cancer each year. 'How do you get from the millions of women who are having children without ending up with one of these breast cancers to the 18,000 or so who are going to get one of these breast cancers?' she said. 'We're still working on figuring that out. Age is important.'
NBC News
3 days ago
- NBC News
How RFK Jr. is quickly changing U.S. health agencies
WASHINGTON — In just a few short months, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has begun to transform U.S. health policy: shrinking staff at health agencies, restructuring the focus of some regulators and researchers, changing Covid vaccine regulations and reshaping the mission of his department to focus more on alternative medicine. The directives are all part of the same issue set that drove a slice of health-conscious, left-leaning Americans to eventually vote for a Republican president whose favorite meal is from McDonald's, Trump and Kennedy catered to a type of voter who has grown distrustful of America's health care establishment — but possibly fomented a new type of distrust in federal health policy along the way. Bernadine Francis, a lifelong Democrat who backed Joe Biden for president in 2020 before supporting Donald Trump in 2024, told NBC News in an interview that she approves of Kennedy's efforts so far, despite his 'hands being tied' by entrenched forces in the administration and in Congress. 'From what I have seen so far with what RFK has been trying to do,' she said, 'I am really, really proud of what he's doing.' Francis is among the voters who left the Democratic Party and voted for Trump because 'nothing else mattered' apart from public health, which they — like Kennedy — felt was going in the wrong direction. Concerns about chemicals in food and toxins in the environment, long championed by Democrats, has become a galvanizing issue to a key portion of Trump's Republican Party, complete with an oversaturation of information that in some cases hasn't been proven. It's wrapped up, as well, in concerns about the Covid vaccine, which was accelerated under Trump, administered under Biden and weaponized by anti-vaccine activists like Kennedy amid lockdowns and firings in the wake of the devastating pandemic. 'We knew in order to get RFK in there so he can help with the situation that we have in the health industry, we knew we had to do this,' said Francis, a retired Washington, D.C., public school administrator, who said she left her 'beloved' career because she had refused the vaccine. 'It seemed to me, as soon as [Biden] became president, the vaccine was mandated, and that was when I lost all hope in the Democrats,' Francis told NBC News, referring to vaccination mandates put in place by the Biden administration for a large portion of the federal workforce during the height of the pandemic. There are not currently any federal Covid vaccine mandates. There have been 1,228,393 confirmed Covid deaths in the United States since the start of the pandemic, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. How RFK Jr.'s picks are changing public health agencies Dr. Marty Makary, Kennedy's hand-picked commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and a John Hopkins scientist and researcher, told NBC News in an interview that he wants to transform the agency, which he said faced 'corruption' over influence from the pharmaceutical and food industries. 'I mean, you look at the food pyramid, it was not based on what's best for you, it was based on what companies wanted you to buy,' he said, referring to the 1992 and later iterations of official government nutritional guidance. He said there would be 'entirely new nutrition guidance' released later this year, as soon as this summer. He praised the FDA's mission of research and regulation, saying the agency is 'incredibly well-oiled, and we've got the trains running on time.' He also highlighted the 75-page 'Make America Healthy Again' commission report — which focused on ultraprocessed foods and toxins in the environment — as having set 'the agenda for research' at the FDA, HHS and agencies overseeing social safety net programs such as Medicare and food stamps moving forward. (The MAHA report initially cited some studies that didn't exist, a mistake that Kennedy adviser Calley Means said was a 'great disservice' to their mission.) 'I think there's a lot we're going to learn. For example, the microbiome, which gets attention in the MAHA report, needs to be on the map. We don't even talk about it in our medical circles,' Makary said. 'The microbiome, food is medicine, the immune response that happens when chemicals that don't appear in nature go down our GI tract.' Pressed on other areas of the administration, like the Environmental Protection Agency, making decisions that run counter to the pro-regulatory ideas presented in the MAHA report, Makary said he can 'only comment on the FDA' where they are 'committed to Secretary Kennedy's vision.' But Kennedy's public health agenda goes beyond looking at the food supply and chemicals. Recently, Kennedy said in a video posted on X last month that the Covid vaccine is no longer recommended for healthy children and pregnant women, a change in CDC guidance that skipped the normal public review period. Days later, after critics questioned the decision and raised concerns over a lack of public data behind the move, the administration updated its guidance again, urging parents to consult with their doctors instead. Pressed about the confusion and whether Americans are now trading one side of public distrust in the health system for another, Makary defended Kennedy, who has been criticized for spreading misinformation. 'My experience with Secretary Robert F. Kennedy is that he listens. He listens to myself, he listens to Jay Bhattacharya, listens to Dr. Mehmet Oz, he listens to a host of scientists that are giving him guidance,' Makary argued, referring to the director of the National Institutes of Health and the administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, respectively. 'So he may have big questions, but the questions he's asking are the questions most Americans are asking.' The intersection of medicine and healthy lifestyle choices Dr. Dawn Mussallem, a breast cancer oncologist and integrative medicine doctor — a physician who combines conventional treatments with research-based alternative therapies — has tried to help her patients wade through medical misinformation they encounter online and in their social circles. Mussallem has an incredible story of personal survival: While in medical school, she was diagnosed with Stage IV cancer and, after conventional therapies like chemo saved her life, was diagnosed with heart failure. After undergoing a heart transplant, Mussallem ran a 26-mile marathon just one year later. 'I learned a lot in medical school, but nothing compared to what I learned being a patient,' said Mussallem, who dedicates, on average, 90 minutes each in one-on-one sessions with her patients. 'This is not about any one political choice. But we know lifestyle matters.' For example, a new study from the American Society of Clinical Oncology that finds eating food that lowers inflammation in the body may help people with advanced colon cancer survive longer. Mussallem's mission, along with her colleagues, is to elevate the modern medicine that saved her life, as well as encouraging her patients to live healthy lifestyles, including regular exercise, minimally processed foods, less screen time, more social connection and better sleep. But politics do get in the way for millions of Americans who are inundated daily with social media influencers and 'nonmedical experts,' as Mussallem puts it, who stoke fear in her patients. 'Patients come in with all these questions, fears,' she said. 'I've heard this many times from patients, that their nervous system is affected by what they're seeing happening in government.' Mussallem acknowledges that 'a lot of individuals out there' have questioned traditional medicine. For her, it isn't one or the other — it's both. 'We have to trust the conventional medicine,' she said. 'With the conventional care that marches right alongside more of an integrative modality to look at the root causes of disease, as well as to help to optimize with lifestyle, is where we need to be.'
Glasgow Times
3 days ago
- Glasgow Times
D-Day landings boosted by import of ‘wonder drug' to Britain, archives reveal
Production of the antibiotic penicillin had struggled to take hold at a large scale in Britain, despite being discovered in 1928 in London by Sir Alexander Fleming. Attempts to produce substantial quantities of medicine from the bacteria-killing mould had not been achieved by the start of the Second World War. Then prime minister Sir Winston Churchill became increasingly frustrated that Britain had not been able to produce enough penicillin in the preparations for the Normandy landings in 1944. Official papers released by the National Archive – containing handwritten notes by Sir Winston – highlight efforts to boost quantities of the antibiotic, with Britain eventually forced to import it from America. The documents were released ahead of the 81st anniversary of D-Day, the Allied invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944. Official papers highlight the efforts to boost quantities of penicillin (The National Archives/PA) In one report on February 19, after the issue had been raised in the House of Commons, Sir Winston scrawled in red ink on a Ministry of Supply report noting the Americans were producing greater quantities: 'I am sorry we can't produce more.' On another paper, he complained: 'Your report on penicillin showing that we are only to get about one tenth of the expected output this year, is very disappointing.' Elsewhere in the same file he instructs: 'Let me have proposals for a more abundant supply from Great Britain.' With preparations for D-Day ramped up, efforts to deliver enough American-made penicillin for frontline military personnel soon became a matter of urgency. Decisions needed to be made on the quantities of antibiotic imported, how much to administer to individual patients, and how to get medical staff trained in time. Most British doctors did not know how to issue penicillin – until this point, doctors had nothing available to treat infections like pneumonia and many people died of blood poisoning after minor injuries because no drug existed that could cure them. Royal Navy D-Day veteran John Dennett, 101, at the British Normandy Memorial in Ver-sur-Mer to mark the 81st anniversary of the landings (Gareth Fuller/PA) Early in January 1944, Prof FR Fraser, the Ministry of Health's adviser on the organisation of wartime hospitals, wrote that 50,000-100,000 wounded could be expected from the Second Front. He proposed the Emergency Medical Services might need as many as five billion units of penicillin per month for this. Further documents show discussions on whether the antibiotic should be supplied as calcium or sodium salts, or in tablet form. Ultimately, it was agreed powdered calcium salts would be issued for superficial wounds and sodium salts for use in deep wounds. On May 24 1944, less than a fortnight before D-Day, Prof Fraser reported: 'Sufficient supplies of penicillin are now available for the treatment of battle casualties in EMS hospitals, but not for ordinary civilian patients.' Plans were made for casualties from the frontline in France to be brought back to coastal hospitals in Britain for treatment. A week before D-Day, on May 30 1944, hospitals were instructed to treat battlefield patients en route: 'In an endeavour to prevent the development of gas gangrene and sepsis in wounds the War Office have arranged for the treatment of selected cases by penicillin to be commenced as soon after injury as possible.' Military reenactors watch the sunrise over Gold Beach in Arromanches-les-Bains, Normandy, on the 81st anniversary of the D-Day landings (Gareth Fuller/PA) Injections of penicillin were to be given to them at intervals of not more than five hours and patients would be wearing a yellow label with the letters 'PEN'. The time and size of penicillin doses should be written on it, they were told. Dr Jessamy Carlson, modern records specialist at the National Archives, said: 'File MH 76/184 gives a glimpse into the extraordinary levels of preparation undertaken in advance of the D-Day landings. 'Only six weeks before, penicillin is just reaching our shores in quantities which will allow it to play a major role in improving the outcomes for service personnel wounded in action.' As Allied forces made inroads into Europe, restrictions on the use of penicillin for civilians began to relax, but only in special cases. In July 1944, Ronald Christie, professor of medicine, wrote to Prof Fraser to tell him: 'The War Office approves of American penicillin being used for medical conditions in service patients and for air raid casualties among civilians.' On the home front, demand for the new 'wonder' drug began to increase, according the National Archives. It was decided that penicillin for civilians should only be supplied to larger hospitals where the staff had been properly trained to administer it. Only in 1946 did it become fully available for the general public.
