States that weakened gun laws saw rise in pediatric mortality, study finds
Firearms have risen to become the leading cause of death among children and teens in the United States in recent years, but a new study joins a growing set of evidence that gun laws can make a difference.
A landmark Supreme Court case in 2010 – McDonald v. Chicago – ruled that the Second Amendment applies to local governments, leading to a flurry of new laws and a deeper divide in state policy around firearms, with some states tightening restrictions and others weakening gun-related laws.
Over the next 13 years, thousands more children died from firearm violence than earlier trends would have predicted – and all of the increase happened in groups of states that had more permissive gun laws, according to a study published Monday in JAMA Pediatrics.
Researchers grouped states into three categories based on firearm ownership and use policies – most permissive, permissive and strict – using a composite of policy scorecards from nonprofit advocacy groups: Brady, Everytown for Gun Safety and the Giffords Law Center.
They found significant increases in the number of children who died from guns in states with looser laws: more than 6,000 additional deaths in states with the most permissive laws between 2011 and 2023, and more than 1,400 additional deaths in states considered to have permissive laws.
Half of the states considered to have strict firearm laws – California, Maryland, New York, and Rhode Island – saw a decrease in pediatric firearm mortality in that time.
Overall, there was an increase in child deaths from firearm-related homicides and an even greater increase in child deaths from firearm-related suicides, the study found. But pediatric mortality from others causes – including other suicides – did not increase in this time.
Experts emphasize that many gun-related injuries and deaths are preventable, especially among children.
'In some ways, suicide can be more preventable than homicide, and a lot of that has to do with what children and youth have access to when they are having suicidal ideation,' said Dr. Lois Lee, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Injury, Violence, and Poison Prevention. 'Means matter,' said Lee, who has researched the topic but was not involved in the new study.
If more states had adopted stricter gun laws, many more children would be alive today, said Dr. Jeremy Faust, an emergency physician at Brigham and Women's Hospital and an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, who was the lead author of the new study.
'It's not a pipe dream. The best-case scenario isn't some fictitious place. The best-case scenario is just a bunch of states that we currently live in, or don't,' he said.
The new research didn't identify the specific types of gun policy that were the most harmful or most protective, but earlier research has suggested that background checks, secure storage laws and policies that otherwise prevent child access to guns are associated with lower pediatric firearm mortality.
Dr. Christopher Rees, a pediatric emergency physician at Children's Healthcare of Atlanta and assistant professor at Emory University School of Medicine, was not involved in the new study but has researched the effects that policy can have on pediatric firearm mortality and cared for patients who have been directly affected.
'It's not a political issue at the bedside,' he said. 'We should approach this as a way of protecting children and keeping children out of the emergency department.'
In his own experience, he has noticed a difference between practicing in Massachusetts, a state which the new study considers to have strict firearm policy, and Georgia, which is considered to be among the most permissive.
'When I was a fellow in Boston at Boston Children's Hospital, I saw zero firearm-related injuries or fatalities,' Rees said. 'Since I have moved to Atlanta, I can't count how many children I have taken care of who have been involved in firearm-related injuries.'
Firearms surpassed car accidents to become the leading cause of death among children and teens in the US in 2020, and Rees said that the philosophy behind seatbelts can serve as a guide of sorts for gun policy.
'We wear our seat belts all the time because you don't know when you're going to get in a car accident,' he said, and it can be difficult to predict with firearms, too. 'So, in my mind, the way to avoid unpredictable events is to have smart, preventive pieces in place before those unpredictable moments may come up.'
In 2023, about 3,500 children and teens died in gun-related incidents, according to data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – accounting for nearly 1 in 5 deaths among those ages 1 to 18.
Research dollars to understand how to best prevent gun injuries and protect children has been lagging for years, and experts warn that recent cuts to federal health programs under the current Trump administration raise risks.
The new study came from unfunded research, Faust said, and relied on data from the CDC's Injury and Violence Prevention Center – which was recently gutted by staff cuts.
'We do it because we care about it. But that's not sustainable,' Faust said. 'Our system really does function well based on a synergy between public resources and extramural research, and I'm really worried that the cuts to the CDC will make it harder for us to track this and every other epidemic.'
Last month, hundreds of leading national, state, and local medical, public health, and research organizations sent a letter urging federal lawmakers to fund federal firearm violence prevention research.
'Across this country, communities are suffering from preventable firearm-related injuries and deaths,' they wrote. 'The freedom of individuals to own firearms can and should be balanced with protecting children and their families from serious harm, and ensuring the health, security, and well-being of all people.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
44 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Georgia's experience raises red flags for Medicaid work requirement moving through Congress
ATLANTA (AP) — Georgia's experiment with a work requirement for Medicaid offers a test of a similar mandate Republicans in Congress want to implement nationally, and advocates say the results so far should serve as a warning. Just days shy of its two-year anniversary, the Georgia Medicaid program is providing health coverage to about 7,500 low-income residents, up from 4,300 in the first year, but far fewer than the estimated 240,000 people who could qualify. The state had predicted at least 25,000 enrollees in the first year and nearly 50,000 in the second year. Applicants and beneficiaries have faced technical glitches and found it nearly impossible at times to reach staff for help, despite more than $50 million in federal and state spending on computer software and administration. The program, dubbed Georgia Pathways, had a backlog of more than 16,000 applications 14 months after its July 2023 launch, according to a renewal application Georgia submitted to the Trump administration in April. 'The data on the Pathways program speaks for itself,' said Laura Colbert, executive director of Georgians for a Healthy Future, an advocacy group that has called for a broader expansion of Medicaid without work requirements. 'There are just so many hurdles at every step of the way that it's just a really difficult program for people to enroll in and then to stay enrolled in too.' Georgia's rules A tax and spending bill backed by President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers that passed the U.S. House in May would require many able-bodied Medicaid enrollees under 65 to show that they work, volunteer or go to school. The bill is now in the Senate, where Republicans want significant changes. Pathways requires beneficiaries to perform 80 hours a month of work, volunteer activity, schooling or vocational rehabilitation. It's the only Medicaid program in the nation with a work requirement. But Georgia recently stopped checking each month whether beneficiaries were meeting the mandate. Colbert and other advocates view that as evidence that state staff was overburdened with reviewing proof-of-work documents. Fiona Roberts, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Community Health, said Gov. Brian Kemp has mandated that state agencies 'continually seek ways to make government more efficient and accessible.' Georgia's governor defends Pathways The governor's office defended the enrollment numbers. Kemp spokesman Garrison Douglas said the early projections for Pathways were made in 2019, when the state had a much larger pool of uninsured residents who could qualify for the program. In a statement, Douglas credited the Republican governor with bringing that number down significantly through 'historic job growth,' and said the decline in uninsured residents proved 'the governor's plan to address our healthcare needs is working.' For BeShea Terry, Pathways was a 'godsend.' After going without insurance for more than a year, Terry, 51, said Pathways allowed her to get a mammogram and other screening tests. Terry touts Pathways in a video on the program's website. But in a phone interview with The Associated Press, she said she also experienced problems. Numerous times, she received erroneous messages that she hadn't uploaded proof of her work hours. Then in December, her coverage was abruptly canceled — a mistake that took months of calls to a caseworker and visits to a state office to resolve, she said. 'It's a process,' she said. 'Keep continuing to call because your health is very important.' Health advocates say many low-income Americans may not have the time or resources. They are often struggling with food and housing needs. They are also more likely to have limited access to the internet and work informal jobs that don't produce pay stubs. Republican lawmakers have promoted work requirements as a way to boost employment, but most Medicaid recipients already work, and the vast majority who don't are in school, caring for someone, or sick or disabled. Kemp's administration has defended Pathways as a way to transition people to private health care. At least 1,000 people have left the program and obtained private insurance because their income increased, according to the governor's office. After a slow start, advertising and outreach efforts for Pathways have picked up over the last year. At a job fair in Atlanta on Thursday, staff handed out information about the program at a table with mints, hand sanitizer and other swag with the Pathways' logo. A wheel that people could spin for a prize sat on one end. Since Pathways imposed the work requirement only on newly eligible state residents, no one lost coverage. The Arkansas experiment That's a contrast with Arkansas, where 18,000 people were pushed off Medicaid within the first seven months of a 2018 work mandate that applied to some existing beneficiaries. A federal judge later blocked the requirement. The bill that passed the U.S. House would likely cause an estimated 5.2 million people to lose health coverage, according to an analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released Wednesday. Arkansas Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders has proposed reviving the work mandate but without requiring people to regularly report employment hours. Instead, the state would rely on existing data to determine enrollees who were not meeting goals for employment and other markers and refer those people to coaches before any decision to suspend them. Arkansas is among at least 10 states pursuing work requirements for their Medicaid programs separate from the effort in Congress. Republican state Sen. Missy Irvin said Arkansas' new initiative aims to understand who the beneficiaries are and what challenges they face. 'We want you to be able to take care of yourself and your family, your loved ones and everybody else,' Irvin said. 'How can we help you? Being a successful individual is a healthy individual.' ___ Associated Press writers Jonathan Mattise in Nashville, Tennessee, Andrew DeMillo in Little Rock, Arkansas, and Geoff Mulvihill in Philadelphia contributed to this report.
Forbes
44 minutes ago
- Forbes
Health Insurers Call Out Trump On Promise To Not Cut Seniors' Medicare
The nation's health insurance companies say legislation wending its way through the Republican-controlled Congress would break a promise by Donald Trump and the GOP not to cut Medicare benefits to seniors. It's the latest part of the healthcare industry to fight back against proposed federal cuts in healthcare benefits to millions of Americans. Already, physicians led by the American Medical Association have launched an ad campaign targeting U.S. Senators in an effort to thwart the budget legislation. Legislation known as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' that narrowly passed the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives two weeks ago would reduce federal Medicaid spending by $793 billion and increase the number of uninsured by 7.8 million, a KFF analysis shows. But the powerful lobby, America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) said Medicare, too, would be cut and raise costs on millions of seniors. AHIP's members include some of the nation's largest health insurers, including Elevance Health, Humana, CVS Health's Aetna and an array of Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans. These health insurers, including UnitedHealth Group's UnitedHealthcare, provide health benefits to more than half of the nation's eligible seniors through privatized coverage known as Medicare Advantage. The plans contract with the federal government to provide traditional coverage available in traditional Medicare plus extra benefits and services to seniors, such as disease management and nurse help hotlines with some also offering vision, dental care and wellness programs. 'The President and Congressional leaders made a clear promise to seniors that there would be no cuts to Medicare as part of the budget reconciliation legislation," AHIP President and CEO Mike Tuffin said Monday. 'Last-minute attempts to cut Medicare Advantage to fund other priorities would directly undermine that promise and lead to higher costs and reductions in benefits for more than 34 million seniors,' Tuffin said. "We oppose cuts to Medicare Advantage, including the No UPCODE Act, and urge Congress to keep the promise to America's seniors.' Any loss in health plan members covered by Medicare Advantage would be an added blow to health insurers. They need large numbers of subscribers paying premiums to cover their costs. Many of these same health insurers have been hit hard by rising costs from an influx of seniors purchasing Medicare Advantage.
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Homeless are 27 times more likely to visit emergency room for heat illness, study shows
Last summer, Taylor Weckstein was driving around rural New Mexico in a van delivering medical care to the homeless in the sweltering heat. The Harvard Medical School graduate came across people with severe dehydration, kidney disease, and third-degree burns from being seared by the pavement, she recalled. 'Honestly, it was pretty horrific,' she said.
