Smarter Health Outlay May Add Years to US Lifespans, Study Says
The research found that people around the world could live an average of 3.3 more years if countries got better returns on their health budgets. Global inefficiencies declined steadily from 1995 to 2019 — until Covid-19 disrupted progress, according to the study, published Tuesday in The Lancet Global Health.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Ozempic Is Costing Grocery Stores Billions
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. GLP-1 medications, including Ozempic and Mounjaro, are already costing grocery stores billions. According to a new report from Big Chalk Analytics, GLP-1 users have cut $6.5 billion from U.S. grocery spending, and the popularity of the weight loss and diabetes medications appears to only be growing. Why It Matters The use of weight-loss medications called glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists has skyrocketed in recent years. Popular products include Ozempic, Mounjaro, Wegovy and Zepound and have been key treatments for many Americans who are obese or have type 2 diabetes. While the full health effects of these drugs in the long term has not been studied, their prevalence has shown the potential to disrupt industries by lowering grocery and even restaurant profits in the long term. People shop at a grocery store in Brooklyn on May 13, 2025 in New York City. People shop at a grocery store in Brooklyn on May 13, 2025 in New York To Know While GLP-1 medications are already reportedly costing grocers $6.5 billion, the impact could be even costlier in the years to come as 8.3 percent of Americans are planning to start the medications, according to the new Big Chalk survey of more than 4,500 consumers. If this happens, the survey projects losses as much as an additional $4.4 to $10.8 billion. "The changes being seen in grocery stores are the result of people making better choices about food –less ultra-processed food and possibly less food overall," David Navazio, CEO of health care product company Gentell, told Newsweek. Several types of products have seen their purchase rates go down, from cereal and soft drinks to lunch meats. Currently, an estimated 11.2 percent of U.S. adults are on GLP-1 medications, but roughly 20 percent could soon be on the medication in just 12 months. "It's one of the fascinating business 'side effects' of medications like Ozempic that grocery stores are seeing a dip in business," Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek. "The idea is these medications suppress hunger, which is causing consumers to purchase food less. And while there is certainly some truth to this, it's too soon to call it a long-term trend. Financially, it can be seen as a good thing for money-strapped customers who can reduce their grocery bills along with their waistlines. Whether or not this economic impact is a lasting one remains to be seen." So far, the medications have triggered grocery volume losses of 1.2 to 2.9 percent, with dollar sales dropping between 0.9 and 2.3 percent, depending on the category, according to the report. GLP-1 users were 65 percent more likely to buy smaller packs of cereal and 48 percent more likely to purchase smaller packs of lunch meats. This extended to soft drinks as well, with those on the medication 36 percent more likely to opt for the smaller sizes. "The opportunity for grocery brands is twofold: A continued migration toward better-for-you products—plus an emphasis on smaller pack sizes—are ways CPG brands can adapt to these changing consumer demands for volume," Rick Miller, partner and marketing effectiveness practice lead at Big Chalk, told Newsweek. What People Are Saying Rick Miller, partner and marketing effectiveness practice lead at Big Chalk, said in a statement: "GLP-1s have crossed the household-penetration threshold where their impact on grocery volumes and dollar sales can no longer be ignored. We're past anecdotes. This is measurable, structural change. Brands and retailers must rethink assortment, pricing, and promotion for a shopper who is literally consuming less." David Navazio, CEO of health care product company Gentell, told Newsweek: "We will see changes in product selection as a result of the changes in people's buying habits, with an emphasis on whole foods, produce, lean meats." For grocery stores, it may take time to adapt. But the change is undoubtedly good for the country as a whole that our population is becoming healthier." Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "Like anything else, this comes down to supply and demand. If grocery stores are seeing a drop in volume, the next step would usually be lower prices. That's not what we're seeing. Grocery prices were up another 0.3 percent in June, according to the latest CPI data. So if grocers are losing, I'm not quite sure who's winning yet." Drew Powers, the founder of Illinois-based Powers Financial Group, told Newsweek: "At any given point in time, there is one part of the economy that is booming at the expense of another. This is just the normal oscillation around economic equilibrium. In very general terms, being less obese is healthier, and I think it is a good thing overall to having a healthier population. Grocery stores will slowly adapt to new eating and shopping habits, which will have knockoff effects in other sectors, while some parts of the economy will see increased spending that can be attributed to GLP-1 use." What Happens Next Beyond the economic impacts, the long-term implications of GLP-1 medications on health are still being studied. A recent study discovered a new link between taking GLP-1 drugs and elevated risk of pancreatitis and kidney conditions, including kidney stones. GLP-1 medications are also tied to a higher risk of digestive problems, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and even stomach paralysis in rare cases. For the business economics of grocers reacting to the uptick in GLP-1 usage, prices have not adequately shifted yet, Thompson said. "America has an obesity problem. If these drugs are helping people eat less and live healthier lives, that's a net positive," Thompson said. "But in a capitalist economy—if Adam Smith's invisible hand is really at work—we should be seeing food prices and health care costs fall also. That's not happening. Health care continues to rise at an alarming rate, and food prices are still climbing. Long term, we might expect some price relief, but we're not there yet."
Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
Fact or Fiction: Cervical Cancer
Emerging research stresses the value of early intervention and improved screening strategies for cervical cancer to reduce incidence and mortality. Innovations such as high-risk human papilloma virus (HPV) testing, self-sampling for HPV, and molecular triage tools have the potential to increase early detection — especially in populations with historically low screening rates. Simultaneously, advances in imaging, radiotherapy, and minimally invasive surgery are refining treatment approaches. Clinicians are increasingly called to balance oncologic outcomes with considerations of fertility preservation, psychosocial well-being, and quality of life, especially in younger patients. Current guidelines recommend that cervical cancer screening begin at age 21 years, regardless of when an individual becomes sexually active. For individuals aged 21-29, Pap testing (cytology) alone every 3 years is the standard. HPV testing is not typically used in this age group because transient HPV infections are common and often clear without intervention, making early HPV testing potentially misleading or anxiety-inducing. Beginning at age 30, screening options broaden to include HPV testing alone, co-testing (Pap + HPV), or cytology alone, depending on patient and provider preference and resource availability. Learn more about screening for cervical cancer. While persistent infection with high-risk HPV types — especially HPV 16 and 18 — is the primary cause of cervical cancer, the majority of HPV infections are temporary and are cleared naturally by the immune system within a few years. In fact, while the majority of sexually active individuals will acquire HPV at some point, only a small percentage develop precancerous changes or cervical cancer. Progression to cancer typically occurs over many years, and only persistent infection with high-risk types leads to high-grade dysplasia or malignancy. This is why screening and vaccination are both essential: Screening detects persistent infection or cellular changes early, while vaccination reduces the risk of acquiring high-risk HPV types in the first place. Learn more about the pathophysiology of cervical cancer. In cases of locally advanced cervical cancer, specifically stages IB3, II, III, and IVA, the standard of care is concurrent chemoradiation, not surgery. This approach combines external beam radiation therapy with chemotherapy — most commonly cisplatin — to enhance tumor response and reduce recurrence. Studies have shown that surgery in these stages does not improve survival and may even increase morbidity when combined with radiation therapy, while chemoradiation is highly effective in treating the primary tumor and locally advanced disease. Learn more about management considerations. Although HPV vaccination significantly reduces the risk for cervical cancer, it does not eliminate the need for regular screening. The current vaccines protect against the most common high-risk types — especially HPV 16 and 18 — but not all oncogenic strains. Furthermore, some individuals may already have been exposed to HPV before vaccination or may not have completed the full vaccine series. Cervical cancer screening remains essential because it detects precancerous changes and early-stage cancers, including those caused by HPV types not covered by the vaccine. Continued screening ensures that individuals, whether vaccinated or not, receive timely diagnosis and treatment. National guidelines recommend maintaining routine Pap and/or HPV testing regardless of vaccination status. Learn more about the clinical presentation of cervical cancer. For individuals aged 30-65, molecular testing for high-risk HPV types is now preferred by the American Cancer Society and is also recommended along with cytology by the USPSTF. HPV testing is more sensitive than cytology in detecting high-grade cervical lesions, although it has slightly lower specificity. Testing can be done alone or in combination with cytology (co-testing), with intervals typically ranging from 3 to 5 years. The move toward molecular testing reflects a shift in understanding of cervical carcinogenesis, where persistent HPV infection is the key driver. Incorporating HPV testing improves early detection and may help reduce cervical cancer incidence in the long term. However, follow-up strategies must be carefully tailored to reduce false positives and unnecessary interventions. Learn more about the workup for cervical cancer.
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
New Peer-Reviewed Study Reveals Severe Health and Economic Consequences of 2025 Medicaid Policy Changes
Research published in JAMA Health Forum projects 13-14 excess deaths and over 800 preventable hospitalizations annually per 100,000 people losing Medicaid coverage SAN FRANCISCO, CA / ACCESS Newswire / July 16, 2025 / Waymark, a public benefit company dedicated to improving access and quality of care in Medicaid, today published peer-reviewed research in JAMA Health Forum examining the projected health system and economic impacts of 2025 Medicaid policy changes. The study, conducted in collaboration with researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, reveals that H.R. 1, the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" recently passed by Congress, could result in devastating consequences for vulnerable populations, rural communities, and local economies nationwide. Numerous studies from multiple organizations, including the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), estimate that Medicaid changes including eligibility restrictions, work requirements, and reduced federal matching rates would result in between 7.6 million and 14.4 million Americans becoming uninsured by 2034. Unlike previous analyses focused on enrollment projections, this study quantifies how changes in federal spending and coverage could impact population-level health outcomes and create economic ripple effects for communities across the country - particularly in rural areas already struggling with healthcare access. Key findings: The study projects that for every 100,000 people who lose Medicaid coverage, communities can expect substantial consequences for health outcomes and economic stability: Health and Economic Impacts (Per 100,000 People Losing Coverage): 13-14 excess deaths annually810-924 preventable hospitalizations annually~2,582 jobs lost annually~$1.2 billion in reduced economic output annually Healthcare System Impacts (National Scale): Rural hospitals face heightened risk of closure, with impact disproportionate to coverage losses due to the high concentration of patients on Medicaid in rural areasFederally qualified health centers (FQHCs) experience revenue reductions of 18.7-26.1% depending on coverage loss magnitude and the degree to which patients losing Medicaid would be able to gain other forms of insurance (e.g., Exchange plans) The study analyzed both base case and higher coverage loss scenarios, with per-capita health and economic consequences remaining consistent across both scenarios. These projected ratios can be applied regardless of the final number of people affected by the policy changes, as uncertainty remains regarding the scale of coverage losses due to administrative burdens of renewal and work requirement verification processes. The study is based on a comprehensive microsimulation model incorporating empirically derived parameters from peer-reviewed literature on health outcomes, healthcare systems, and local economies. "This analysis demonstrates that Medicaid policy changes in H.R. 1 could have far-reaching consequences extending well beyond federal budget considerations," said Dr. Sanjay Basu MD PhD, lead author of the study and Co-Founder and Head of Clinical for Waymark. "The data shows that rural and underserved communities would bear a disproportionate burden of these policy changes, with implications for people's lives and livelihoods that state and local policymakers must carefully consider." With H.R. 1 now signed into law, these findings provide critical insights into what communities can expect as the legislation's provisions take effect. The law includes 80-hour monthly work requirements for able-bodied adults, enhanced eligibility verification every six months, and reduced federal matching rates for expansion populations - representing the most significant restructuring of Medicaid since the program's creation. "Medicaid affects many different aspects of people's lives," said Dr. Seth A. Berkowitz MD MPH, co-author of the study and Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine. "When Medicaid gets cut, there are of course health impacts to the people who lose coverage. But there are also important impacts to the broader community, and policymakers need to consider those impacts as well." Recognizing the importance of tracking implementation impacts, the research team has made their microsimulation model open source to enable updated estimates as implementation details are finalized. This approach ensures that policymakers and stakeholders have access to the most current projections as states develop their implementation plans. "This research demonstrates the critical importance of understanding the full consequences of proposed Medicaid changes beyond federal budget numbers," said Dr. Sadiq Y. Patel MSW PhD, an author for the study and VP of Data Science and Artificial Intelligence for Waymark. "Our model reveals that coverage losses would cascade through communities in ways that profoundly impact public health, healthcare delivery systems, and local economies. These findings should inform policymakers about the real-world trade-offs inherent in these policy decisions." The research letter titled "Projected Health System and Economic Impacts of 2025 Medicaid Policy Proposals" was published in JAMA Health Forum. The study was conducted by Dr. Sanjay Basu (Waymark, University of California San Francisco), Dr. Sadiq Y. Patel (Waymark, University of Pennsylvania), and Dr. Seth A. Berkowitz (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). About WaymarkWaymark is a public benefit company dedicated to improving access and quality of care for people receiving Medicaid. We partner with health plans and primary care providers - including health systems, federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), and independent practices - to reduce disparities and improve outcomes through technology-enabled, community-based care. Our local teams of community health workers, pharmacists, therapists and care coordinators use proprietary data science and machine learning technologies to deliver evidence-based interventions to hard-to-reach patient populations. Waymark's peer-reviewed research has been published in leading journals including the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) Catalyst, Nature Scientific Reports, and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)-demonstrating measurable improvements in health outcomes and cost savings for Medicaid populations. For more information, visit Contact Information Iman Rahim SOURCE: Waymark press release
