1 in 10 Hoosiers over 65 has Alzheimer's
Why it matters: More than 7 million American seniors now live with Alzheimer's, the highest number ever recorded, but addressing cognitive decline early can help stave off the disease.
By the numbers: Almost two-thirds of Americans with Alzheimer's are women, per data cited in the report.
Risk increases with age: 5.1% of people ages 65–74 have it, while a third of people 85 and older have it, per the report.
Zoom in: Indiana's elderly population is expected to grow rapidly in the coming years, according to projections from the Indiana Business Research Center at Indiana University's Kelley School of Business.
One in every five Hoosiers (over 966,000 people) will be 65 or older by 2030.
Marion County skews a bit younger. The elderly population percentage is here is poised to reach 16.2% in 2030.
Stunning stat: The research center says the number of people 65 and up in Indiana will surpass 1.5 million by 2050, a 57% increase from 2015.
Threat level: Nearly 18% of Hoosiers 45 and older already have subjective cognitive decline, according to the Alzheimer's Association.
And the burden of care is often thrust onto family members. The Alzheimer's Association estimates about 219,000 Indiana caregivers provide unpaid care valued at $6.9 billion for loved ones with the disease.
Zoom out: The highest rates of seniors with Alzheimer's are in D.C. (16.8%) and Maryland (12.9%). The lowest is in Alaska (8.8%).
What they're saying: "It doesn't surprise me" that Alzheimer's incidence has increased, because the population is aging and "we're becoming more sophisticated in our options for diagnosing and testing for Alzheimer's disease," Lakelyn Eichenberger, a gerontologist and caregiving advocate at Home Instead, tells Axios.
With cases climbing and age a key risk factor, early action is critical for managing the disease and accessing new treatments, Eichenberger says.
Warning signs to watch for in high-risk age groups:
Trouble finding the right word.
Difficulty judging distances.
Misplacing things and struggling to retrace steps.
Between the lines: "If you're seeing patterns of these types of signs over an extended period of time," that could mean it's time to see a doctor about cognitive decline, Eichenberger says.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
2 hours ago
- Politico
Supreme Court lets Trump admin cut off health grants it says advance DEI or ‘gender ideology extremism'
Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's liberals in dissent from the court's decision to permit the funding halt. The Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to cut off health research grants it contends advance diversity, equity and inclusion efforts or promote 'gender ideology extremism.' By a 5-4 vote, the justices lifted an order a federal court judge in Boston issued forcing the National Institutes of Health to restore funding for more than 1,700 grants focused on heart disease, HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer's disease, alcohol and substance abuse and mental health issues. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's liberals in dissent from the court's decision to permit the funding halt.
Atlantic
2 hours ago
- Atlantic
A MAHA Progress Report
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has spent the past six months working fast to embed his Make America Healthy Again creed into American life. Over the summer alone, he has struck deals with some food companies to phase out some petroleum-based food dyes, waged a war against pediatricians over COVID-19 vaccines for young children, seemingly toyed with the idea of shipping fresh food to Americans in ' MAHA boxes,' and pledged to reboot the nation's dietary guidelines from scratch. I spoke with the Atlantic staff writer Nicholas Florko, who reports on health policy, about how the MAHA-fication of the country is coming along. Nicholas Florko: We've seen Robert F. Kennedy Jr. take actions that will weaken our vaccination system in the United States, confirming some of public health's worst fears. But there have also been some surprising successes in his term. RFK Jr. has embraced the role of a dealmaker, and we've seen him leaning on food companies in particular to change their offerings and get rid of synthetic dyes. He's been able to do that simply by asking and by making handshake agreements, as opposed to what we would normally expect from a health secretary—for him to use his regulatory power to force these changes. Stephanie: Why are these handshake agreements proving successful? Nicholas: Food companies likely realize that it's in their best interest to get on the good side of the Trump administration. We see this throughout all sectors of business, but for the food sector, these changes are small enough that companies can make them without dramatically hurting their bottom line, while also earning a lot of brownie points with the administration. Stephanie: That reminds me of President Donald Trump's announcement in July that Coca-Cola, famously his favorite drink, had agreed to make their soda with cane sugar rather than high-fructose corn syrup. To what extent is Trump influencing health policy? Does RFK Jr. have a lot of latitude? Nicholas: The Coca-Cola issue is an interesting one because while it's true that RFK Jr. is very anti–high-fructose corn syrup, he's also publicly called sugar a 'poison.' So this is one of those instances where you wonder what is behind RFK Jr. supporting this change. He must know that this isn't actually going to significantly improve public health, but also probably realizes that this is important to his boss. That being said, I think that RFK Jr. does have some latitude. If you left Trump to his own devices, you probably wouldn't see the same level of aggression toward food companies overall, unless he had a personal stake in the situation. Stephanie: With back-to-school season under way, many students are getting up-to-date on their shots. How does this year's vaccination season compare to years past? Nicholas: We haven't seen huge changes, but we are seeing some hints of what might come. Much of the action thus far is around COVID vaccines. In February the president issued a largely symbolic executive order barring schools from enforcing COVID-19 vaccine mandates, but by the time that was issued, virtually no schools actually had such a policy. RFK Jr. also softened the CDC's recommendation for kids to get the COVID-19 vaccine. That's probably been one of his most controversial decisions, prompting a high-profile clash with pediatricians; a leading pediatrics group put out its own suggestions saying that children should be getting vaccinated. But we haven't seen major changes to the other vaccines typically required for returning to school. Stephanie: That disagreement must make it confusing for parents to know who to listen to. Nicholas: It's reasonable to assume that a good portion of people will listen to RFK Jr., but those people may be already skeptical of vaccines and see him as a trustworthy messenger, versus folks who are on the fence. I think that's really the question: Where do those people who are on the fence go? Do they take RFK Jr.'s suggestion, or do they trust their doctor? Stephanie: In May, you wrote a story that was alarming for salad lovers, specifically about how bagged lettuce should be avoided. What's happening with America's food-safety system? Nicholas: One of the earliest, most concerning changes for food safety happened when DOGE came into the federal agencies. Advisory committees focused on food-safety questions were shut down. People were being laid off—such as the administrative staff in charge of making sure that inspectors can go out to farms. Some layoffs seem to have been rescinded, but there's a broad worry about what will happen to the day-to-day operations that we all depend on to keep us safe. Stephanie: A recent story about the recall of frozen shrimp with potential radioactive contamination has caused a bit of a panic about where America's food safety is headed. How did you take that news? Nicholas: One thing that gives me some hope is the fact that this is the sort of thing that we caught, and there have been recalls by Walmart. That's really the big fear when it comes to food safety: that if we attack these federal programs, they're not going to be able to actually find the food that might get us sick before a lot of people get sick. So I think this is actually a good sign that things are working relatively well. Stephanie: Out of all the stories you've written this past summer about the MAHA movement, is there one that keeps you up at night? And is there one that makes you feel hopeful for where American health and safety is going? Nicholas: Honestly, the stories that keep me up at night are by our colleague Katie Wu. Her recent one on RFK Jr.'s COVID revenge campaign has really stuck with me. My own story that both keeps me up at night and that makes me hopeful is related to states, which are taking up the MAHA charge in a very quick fashion. It's felt like Republican governors and legislatures are all trying to out-MAHA one another to ingratiate themselves to Trump and to RFK Jr. Some of these ideas are good from a public-health perspective, but these states are doing a lot of things really fast, which is what worries me. For example, some states are blocking people from using food stamps to buy soda and other junk food. There's a question of how that policy will be implemented, how the attempts to enact these restrictions could affect the entire food-stamp system. Other states have passed laws banning artificial dyes in their school meals. Again, it's one of those ideas that's a good step, but the devil is in the details of how it's executed. How does this flurry of activity in the states actually affect people in the coming months? Does this ultimately make America healthier, or does it send our food system into chaos? Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: Today's News A New York appeals court voided the roughly $500 million civil-fraud penalty against President Donald Trump, calling it 'excessive,' but upheld the finding that Trump and his company committed long-running business fraud. Business restrictions on Trump in New York remain, and the state plans to appeal. More immigrants are leaving the U.S. than arriving, according to the Pew Research Center. The shift, affected by Trump's strict immigration policies, is the first of its kind since the 1960s. California lawmakers passed the first of three bills on a redistricting plan backed by Governor Gavin Newsom that would shift as many as five Republican-held U.S. House seats toward Democrats ahead of the 2026 midterms. The move comes a day after Texas state House Republicans passed a new congressional map that could add five U.S. House seats for the GOP. Evening Read What We Gain When We Stop Caring By Anna Holmes Sometime in the early aughts, the comedian Amy Poehler made a vulgar joke while sitting in the Saturday Night Live writers' room waiting for a midweek read-through to begin. As detailed in Tina Fey's 2011 memoir, Bossypants, Jimmy Fallon, who was also in the show's cast at the time, jokingly recoiled and told Poehler to stop it. 'It's not cute!' Fallon exclaimed. 'I don't like it.' 'Amy dropped what she was doing, went black in the eyes for a second, and wheeled around on him,' Fey writes. ''I don't fucking care if you like it.'' Read the full article. More From The Atlantic Read. In 2022, The Atlantic 's Culture writers recommended the books that they read too late —but that you should read now. Take a look. This is how the 17th-century painter Rachel Ruysch became one of the greatest still-life painters in the history of art, Zachary Fine writes. When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court lets Trump admin cut off health grants it says advance DEI or ‘gender ideology extremism'
The Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to cut off health research grants it contends advance diversity, equity and inclusion efforts or promote 'gender ideology extremism.' By a 5-4 vote, the justices lifted an order a federal court judge in Boston issued forcing the National Institutes of Health to restore funding for more than 1,700 grants focused on heart disease, HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer's disease, alcohol and substance abuse and mental health issues. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's liberals in dissent from the court's decision to permit the funding halt. While Barrett voted with most of the court's conservatives to let the administration stop the grant funding, she sided with Roberts and the liberals to form a majority that left in place the lower judge's order voiding several NIH policies aimed at enforcing Trump's anti-DEI edicts. Since the ruling leaves the grant recipients without federal funds for now, the Trump administration seems certain to claim it as yet another in a flurry of wins in emergency appeals it has filed with the Supreme Court. In a solo concurring opinion, Barrett indicated that the court's ruling Thursday signaled that the grant recipients should have brought their claims for lost funding not to a district judge in Boston but to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, which hears disputes over federal contracts. U.S. District Judge William Young ordered the health-related grants restored in June, following lawsuits filed by impacted grant recipients and 16 Democratic-led states complaining of cuts to programs at their state universities. Young, a Reagan appointee, used unusually strident language to condemn the targeted cuts, many of which ended grants studying the impacts of disease on specific minority groups. 'This represents racial discrimination and discrimination against America's LGBTQ community,' the judge said of the cuts. 'I would be blind not to call it out. My duty is to call it out.' However, in Thursday's ruling, Justice Neil Gorsuch accused Young of defying the Supreme Court by not abiding by an emergency ruling it issued in April, allowing the Trump administration to cancel $64 million in teaching-related grants. (That 5-4 ruling also found Roberts in dissent along with the three liberal justices.) 'When this Court issues a decision, it constitutes a precedent that commands respect in lower courts,' Gorsuch declared, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson penned a blistering 21-page solo opinion calling the court's latest ruling 'bizarre' and complaining in particular about her colleagues 'sending plaintiffs on a likely futile, multivenue quest for complete relief.' She even declared that the court's decision will result in animals used in medical experiments being 'euthanized.' Jackson also repeated her past assertions that the high court is bending over backward to favor the Trump administration. 'Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins,' she wrote. In filings with the high court over the NIH funding, the Trump administration complained that Young's order required the agency to 'pay out over $783 million in grants,' but grant recipients argued that 'figure appears to be invented out of whole cloth.' Solicitor General John Sauer ridiculed some of the grants shut down by the administration, pointing to funding for programs exploring 'intersectional, multilevel and multidimensional structural racism for English- and Spanish-speaking populations' and 'anti-racist healing in nature.' Sauer told the justices that a 'comprehensive internal review' found the grants ran afoul of one or more of three executive orders President Donald Trump issued shortly after he returned to office in January. Two of the directives targeted DEI-related programs and grants, while the third sought to affirm 'the immutable biological reality of sex' by ending policies and programs accommodating or benefiting transgender people. Sauer also put forward the argument that appeared to carry the day Thursday: Congress has mandated legal disputes over federal government grants and contracts be pursued only in the Court of Federal Claims. That court could eventually award financial damages to grantees if it determines their grants were illegally terminated, but is unlikely to provide immediate relief, according to legal experts. The Supreme Court's ruling on the NIH grants is not a final decision on the legality of the grant terminations. But it means the administration can withhold the funding while the legal fight plays out. The Trump administration has appealed Young's ruling to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, which last month declined the administration's request to put his decision on hold as the appeal proceeds.
