Latest news with #InstituteofMedicine
Medscape
03-06-2025
- Business
- Medscape
Effects of BMI and Socioeconomic Status on GWG
Body mass index (BMI), socioeconomic position, and mental health were key determinants of unhealthy gestational weight gain (GWG) among UK women. METHODOLOGY: Researchers performed a secondary analysis of the Born in Bradford cohort to evaluate determinants of unhealthy GWG among UK women. They included 7769 singleton pregnancies and live, term births (≥ 37 to ≤ 42 weeks' gestation). Maternal weight was measured at the first antenatal appointment (median, 11 weeks), study recruitment (~26-28 weeks' gestation; height also recorded), and third trimester (median, 36 weeks); baseline BMI was assessed, and mental health was assessed using the General Health Questionnaire-28. GWG was categorised as less than the recommended weight gain (RWG), RWG, and more than the RWG on the basis of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) 2009 criteria for weekly average weight gain. TAKEAWAY: Only 22.4% of women achieved the recommended GWG; 20.3% gained less and 57.3% gained more than the recommended GWG. Compared with women with a healthy baseline BMI, women with underweight (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.78; P < .001), overweight (aOR, 1.37; P < .001), and obesity (aOR, 1.30; P = .014) had higher odds of gaining less weight than the RWG. < .001), overweight (aOR, 1.37; < .001), and obesity (aOR, 1.30; = .014) had higher odds of gaining less weight than the RWG. Women in the "benefits but coping" socioeconomic class (aOR, 1.42; P = .002) and those in the "most deprived" category (aOR, 1.37; P = .014) had higher odds of having GWG below the RWG. = .002) and those in the "most deprived" category (aOR, 1.37; = .014) had higher odds of having GWG below the RWG. Women with underweight had lower odds of experiencing GWG above the RWG (aOR, 0.58; P < .001), whereas those with overweight (aOR, 3.56) and obesity (OR, 5.86; P < .001 for both) had dramatically higher odds. Pregnancies with a high risk for psychiatric morbidity were linked to increased odds of having GWG above the RWG (aOR, 1.22; P = .003). IN PRACTICE: "Our results may help inform organisations on which groups of women are at greater risk of unhealthy weight gain during pregnancy, such as those with mental health issues, unhealthy baseline BMI, and/or facing economic deprivation," the authors wrote. SOURCE: This study was led by Petra A.T. Araujo, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, England. It was published online on May 23, 2025, in PLOS One . LIMITATIONS: Obtaining accurate GWG measurements posed challenges due to the varying timing of measurements and lack of universal pre-pregnancy weight data. The IOM-recommended criteria might not be optimal for non-US populations and do not initially account for ethnic differences. The study cohort lacked data on late third trimester weight, restricting the ability to assess the absolute GWG. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by an Intermediate Research Fellowship from the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford, United Kingdom. The authors declared having no competing interests.
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
NCIOM President Michelle Ries and NC Child's Erica Palmer Smith on the 2025 Child Health Report Card
NCIOM President Michelle Ries and NC Child's Erica Palmer Smith (courtesy photos) For nearly three decades, a pair of nonprofits – the North Carolina Institute of Medicine and NC Child – have released a biennial study known as the Child Health Report Card. The goal, as you might expect, is to provide legislators, public health officials, school administrators, parents and other nonprofit leaders with the latest information on the health and well-being of our state's kids. This year – as in 2023 – the focus of the report is on the mental health struggles that plague so many children and the urgent need for better (and better funded) public responses. And recently, to learn more about this issue and several others detailed in the report, NC Newsline caught up with the leaders of the two organizations – Institute of Medicine President and CEO Michelle Ries and NC Child executive director, Erica Palmer Smith. Listen to the full interview here with Institute of Medicine President and CEO Michelle Ries and NC Child executive director Erica Palmer Smith. Click here to read the 2025 Child Health Report Card.
Yahoo
21-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Opinion - Preventative care was a game-changer, but now the Supreme Court could take it away
Amid the Trump administration's scorched earth approach to governing — which includes threatening hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid funding — a serious threat to health care has gone under the radar. It could undo years of progress toward preventing disease and making Americans healthier and more secure. In Kennedy v. Braidwood, a case being heard today at the Supreme Court, a lawyer with a long history of attacking fundamental rights has taken aim at the Affordable Care Act's no-cost preventive health care guarantee. The plaintiffs include an employer and several individuals who challenge the constitutionality of the guarantee. Their case has been moving through the courts for five years and finally has reached the Supreme Court on one of their most crucial claims: that coverage recommendations made by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force are unconstitutional. Should plaintiffs prevail, over 150 million Americans ultimately could lose all free preventive health care benefits since the Affordable Care Act's 2010 passage. On the line in the immediate appeal is cost-free coverage for essential care like screening for diabetes, cancer, hepatitis and mental health issues. Insurance companies won't have to cover new preventative care innovations that are better at identifying and preventing deadly diseases. A win for plaintiffs could encourage them to pursue their additional claims aimed at eliminating coverage for women's health, child health and immunizations. Care from birth control to breastfeeding support is also under threat. The Affordable Care Act requires free coverage of women's preventive health care and properly gave experts the responsibility for defining the scope of this coverage. I was fortunate to be invited to join the Institute of Medicine's (now the National Academy of Medicine) committee that proposed these recommendations to give full force to the law's promise of expanding access across the whole continuum of care, starting with prevention and continuing through treatment. Recognizing health disparities women face, we thoroughly reviewed studies to sort through what would be the most effective and feasible ways to improve women's health and well-being. We made eight recommendations, including essential care like breast and cervical cancer screenings, birth control and diabetes screening. These women's health services is in addition to the task force's recommendations, which now involve vital screening for healthy eating and physical activity, anxiety, and urinary incontinence. The Affordable Care Act's free preventive care guarantee has yielded incredible results. More than 150 million people with private insurance, including 58 million women, can receive preventive services through these requirements. More people are getting cancer screenings, HPV vaccinations and annual wellness visits. Women report receiving more cancer screenings, earlier diagnoses and improvements in mental health. More people who struggle to make ends meet are able to get necessary care. These aren't just numbers. Most of us can think back to a time in the last 10 years when we've been able to see the doctor for these concerns without pulling out our wallets. These protections could mean a mother can take aspirin every day so she doesn't have high blood pressure and preeclampsia — a leading cause of maternal death in the U.S. A person in their 40s could catch early colorectal cancer before it spreads, a disease that is increasing among younger people. A woman can take medication every day to reduce her risk of breast cancer without worrying that she won't be able to pay for it. A young person can afford life-saving daily drugs to ensure they won't get HIV. These services don't just make Americans healthier and improve their quality of life. At a time of constantly rising health care costs, they save money. It's much more affordable to prevent a chronic disease than to treat it once it's progressed. Losing preventative health care services would be a huge step backward. We know that when these services cost even a small amount of money, people will skip them. It will be a huge blow to people who already struggle to get the health care they need, including women, people of color and people with low incomes. That mother might not make it through her birth. That woman might have to go through grueling treatment for breast cancer. Ending these protections will lead to more disease, chronic conditions, and ultimately deaths that could have been avoided. Reform to the health care system requires a scalpel, not a bulldozer. One of the best things we can do is to invest in keeping people healthy and engaged in health care. We should all share our stories with policymakers and the public to show how these requirements have made our lives better. The Supreme Court must listen and protect the progress that has already saved lives and promises to save many more — if we can keep it. Claire D. Brindis, DrPH, is a health policy researcher at the University of California, San Francisco. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
21-04-2025
- Health
- The Hill
Preventative care was a game-changer, but now the Supreme Court could take it away
Amid the Trump administration's scorched earth approach to governing — which includes threatening hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid funding — a serious threat to health care has gone under the radar. It could undo years of progress toward preventing disease and making Americans healthier and more secure. In Kennedy v. Braidwood, a case being heard today at the Supreme Court, a lawyer with a long history of attacking fundamental rights has taken aim at the Affordable Care Act's no-cost preventive health care guarantee. The plaintiffs include an employer and several individuals who challenge the constitutionality of the guarantee. Their case has been moving through the courts for five years and finally has reached the Supreme Court on one of their most crucial claims: that coverage recommendations made by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force are unconstitutional. Should plaintiffs prevail, over 150 million Americans ultimately could lose all free preventive benefits since the Affordable Care Act's 2010 passage. On the line in the immediate appeal is cost-free coverage for essential care like screening for diabetes, cancer, hepatitis and mental health issues. Insurance companies won't have to cover new innovations that are better at identifying and preventing deadly diseases. A win for plaintiffs could encourage them to pursue their additional claims aimed at eliminating coverage for women's health, child health and immunizations. Care from birth control to breastfeeding support is under threat. The Affordable Care Act requires free coverage of women's preventive health care and properly gave experts the responsibility for defining the scope of this coverage. I was fortunate to be invited to join the Institute of Medicine's (now the National Academy of Medicine) committee to make these recommendations to give full force to the law's promise of expanding access across the whole continuum of care, starting with prevention and continuing through treatment. Recognizing health disparities women face, we thoroughly reviewed studies to sort through what would be the most effective and feasible ways to improve women's health and well-being. We made eight recommendations, including essential care like breast and cervical cancer screenings, birth control and diabetes screening. This special group of women's health services is in addition to the task force's recommendations and has been further expanded since our initial landmark work, including screening for healthy eating and physical activity, anxiety and urinary incontinence. The Affordable Care Act's free preventive care guarantee has yielded incredible results. More than 150 million people with private insurance, including 58 million women, can receive preventive services through these requirements. More people are getting cancer screenings, HPV vaccinations and annual wellness visits. Women report getting more cancer screenings, earlier diagnoses and improvements in mental health. More people who struggle to make ends meet are able to get care. These aren't just numbers. Most of us can think back to a time in the last 10 years when we've been able to see the doctor for these concerns without pulling out our wallets. These protections could mean a mother can take aspirin every day so she doesn't have high blood pressure and preeclampsia — a leading cause of maternal death in the U.S. A person in their 40s could catch early colorectal cancer before it spreads, a disease that is increasing among younger people. A woman can take medication every day to reduce her risk of breast cancer without worrying that she won't be able to pay for it. A young person can afford life-saving daily drugs to ensure they won't get HIV. These services don't just make Americans healthier and improve their quality of life. At a time of constantly rising health care costs, they save money. It's much more affordable to prevent a chronic disease than to treat it once it's progressed. Losing these services would be a huge step backward. We know that when these services cost even a small amount of money, people will skip them. It will be a huge blow to people who already struggle to get the health care they need, including women, people of color and people with low incomes. That mother might not make it through her birth. That woman might have to go through grueling treatment for breast cancer. Ending these protections will lead to more disease, chronic conditions, and ultimately deaths that could have been avoided. Reform to the health care system requires a scalpel, not a bulldozer. One of the best things we can do is to invest in keeping people healthy and engaged in health care. We should all share our stories with policymakers and the public to show how these requirements have made our lives better. The Supreme Court must listen and protect the progress that has already saved lives and promises to save many more — if we can keep it.
New York Times
30-01-2025
- Health
- New York Times
Sanders and Kennedy Trade Barbs on Vaccines and Health Care
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, sparking a heated exchange between the two at the end of the Senate health committee hearing Thursday. Mr. Sanders pushed Mr. Kennedy again on his past support for the claims that vaccines caused autism. He also mentioned Mr. Kennedy's praise for Andrew Wakefield, the British scientist whose research fueled speculation that immunizations and autism were linked. His work has since been debunked. When Mr. Kennedy offered that he wouldn't 'rest on a single study,' Mr. Sanders sought to introduce into the record 16 studies that concluded vaccines do not cause autism. Mr. Sanders held up the papers and asked, 'Are you happy?' Mr. Kennedy asked the senator if he included an analysis by the Institute of Medicine, indicating that it would support his position. But that report said the body of evidence favored rejecting a direct link between some vaccines and autism. As Mr. Kennedy tried to elaborate, Mr. Sanders waved his hand to stop him, saying 'don't have a lot of time.' Later, Mr. Sanders questioned Mr. Kennedy about his previous remarks calling the coronavirus vaccine one the deadliest vaccines ever made. Early estimates found that Covid vaccines and other mitigation measures saved 800,000 lives in the United States, and that Covid death rates were 14 times higher among unvaccinated people compared to those who received the Covid booster shot. Mr. Kennedy said he drew his conclusion from the Vaccine Adverse Events Surveillance System, which anti-vaccine groups often cite as proof that vaccines cause injuries. But V.A.E.R.S., as the system is known, includes reports from anyone who wants to file a suspected adverse event — without verification. The reports are not proof that an injury or death was caused by a vaccination. Mr. Sanders again pressed him on whether he disagreed with scientists who have said the Covid vaccine saved lives. 'I'm agnostic because we don't have the science to make that determination,' Mr. Kennedy responded. At various times during the exchanges between the two, the ranking Democrat on the health panel said that he shared the views of both Mr. Trump and Mr. Kennedy that the health care system in the United States is broken. It's a point Mr. Sanders often makes. 'Problem is, their answers will only make a bad situation worse,' Mr. Sanders said, raising his voice as he wrapped up his remarks. Lastly, the senator asked whether Mr. Kennedy would guarantee health care to every American, protections that many other countries already provide. Mr. Sanders has long fought for Medicare for all. 'I'm going to make America healthier than other countries in the world right now — we're the sickest,' Mr. Kennedy said, before Mr. Sanders cut him off to repeat his question. Mr. Kennedy pivoted, addressing Mr. Sanders as 'Bernie' and attacking lawmakers who have accepted millions of dollars from the pharmaceutical industry. He accused Mr. Sanders of doing the same. The crowd cheered. 'Oh no, no, no,' Mr. Sanders raised his hand to hush the crowd. He responded, 'I ran for president like you,' adding that he took contributions in his 2020 presidential campaign from employees of drug companies, but stressed that he received 'not one nickel of PAC money from the pharmaceutical industry.' More applause ensued. Mr. Sanders' face turned red as the two began to yell back and forth, speaking over one another. Senator Markwayne Mullin, Republican of Oklahoma, cut Mr. Sanders off and accused him of 'battering the witness.' 'I'm not battering the witness, I'm trying to get an answer,' Mr. Sanders said, just before the panel's chairman stepped in to say the committee was running over time. The chairman, Senator Bill Cassidy, Republican of Louisiana, said in his final remarks that Mr. Kennedy has a lot of influence. 'Now you got a megaphone,' he chuckled. 'Maybe you and Bernie, you know, Bobby and Bernie. Of everybody in this room, the two of you have the biggest followings.'
