Latest news with #UniversityofVerona
Yahoo
05-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Cancer deaths and tax rates linked in surprising new study: Here's how
People who pay more in taxes could be less likely to die from cancer. The link was revealed in a new study published in JAMA Network Open, which aimed to explore how state-level tax revenue impacts cancer screenings and mortality in the U.S. Researchers from The Ohio State University, Emory University in Georgia and the University of Verona in Italy analyzed 1,150 state-years of tax data over a 23-year period, between 1997 and 2019. (A state-year refers to one year of data from one state.) New Prostate Cancer Test Pinpoints Disease Better Than Psa Option, Study Finds They also reviewed population-level cancer screening rates and cancer-related deaths from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) databases. The states with higher tax income were found to have increased cancer screening rates and decreased cancer mortality rates, the researchers found. Read On The Fox News App For each $1,000 increase in tax revenue per capita, the population had a 1.61% increase in colorectal cancer screening, a 2.17% increase in breast cancer screening and a 0.72% increase in cervical cancer screening rate, the research showed. Alternative Cancer Treatment Could Replace Chemo And Surgery, Study Suggests Among those who had cancerous tumors, each $1,000 increase in tax revenue per capita was linked to up to 4% decreased death rates among White patients. The same reduced risk was not found for racial and ethnic minority populations, according to the study. "State-level tax policy is an underappreciated social determinant of health that may improve cancer screening and mortality rates," the researchers wrote. "These findings suggest that state-level tax revenue may serve as one aspect of a multifaceted approach to improve cancer-related outcomes in the U.S. and help bridge cancer care gaps, particularly in more progressive tax policy settings." Prior studies have identified tax policy as a predictor of public health, particularly for infant mortality risk and overall healthcare outcomes. "Tax revenue may serve as funding that promotes the common good by ensuring access to safe, healthy environments and quality healthcare, while progressive taxes can substantially increase the disposable income of working-class households, thus enhancing their living standards and improving their health and cancer outcomes," the study stated. Click Here To Sign Up For Our Health Newsletter Dr. Marc Siegel, clinical professor of medicine at NYU Langone Health and Fox News senior medical analyst, shared his external reaction to the study. "One possible association could be that the higher your taxes, the more money you would have to buy healthier food and more luxury for relaxation and exercise," he told Fox News Digital. "Having more money to pay for extra treatment, earlier diagnosis and better care can also help prevent cancer death." The study did have some limitations, the researchers acknowledged — chiefly that the results show an association but do not prove that the high tax rates caused the decreased mortality. For more Health articles, visit Cancer screening rates were also based on patient questionnaires, which could have some level of bias. There is also the possibility of measurement errors in the data, the researchers article source: Cancer deaths and tax rates linked in surprising new study: Here's how
Fox News
05-05-2025
- Health
- Fox News
Cancer deaths and tax rates linked in surprising new study: Here's how
People who pay more in taxes could be less likely to die from cancer. The link was revealed in a new study published in JAMA Network Open, which aimed to explore how state-level tax revenue impacts cancer screenings and mortality in the U.S. Researchers from The Ohio State University, Emory University in Georgia and the University of Verona in Italy analyzed 1,150 state-years of tax data over a 23-year period, between 1997 and 2019. (A state-year refers to one year of data from one state.) They also reviewed population-level cancer screening rates and cancer-related deaths from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) databases. The states with higher tax income were found to have increased cancer screening rates and decreased cancer mortality rates, the researchers found. For each $1,000 increase in tax revenue per capita, the population had a 1.61% increase in colorectal cancer screening, a 2.17% increase in breast cancer screening and a 0.72% increase in cervical cancer screening rate, the research showed. Among those who had cancerous tumors, each $1,000 increase in tax revenue per capita was linked to up to 4% decreased death rates among White patients. The same reduced risk was not found for racial and ethnic minority populations, according to the study. "State-level tax policy is an underappreciated social determinant of health that may improve cancer screening and mortality rates," the researchers wrote. "These findings suggest that state-level tax revenue may serve as one aspect of a multifaceted approach to improve cancer-related outcomes in the U.S. and help bridge cancer care gaps, particularly in more progressive tax policy settings." Prior studies have identified tax policy as a predictor of public health, particularly for infant mortality risk and overall healthcare outcomes. "One possible association could be that the higher your taxes, the more money you would have to buy healthier food and more luxury for relaxation and exercise." "Tax revenue may serve as funding that promotes the common good by ensuring access to safe, healthy environments and quality healthcare, while progressive taxes can substantially increase the disposable income of working-class households, thus enhancing their living standards and improving their health and cancer outcomes," the study stated. Dr. Marc Siegel, clinical professor of medicine at NYU Langone Health and Fox News senior medical analyst, shared his external reaction to the study. "One possible association could be that the higher your taxes, the more money you would have to buy healthier food and more luxury for relaxation and exercise," he told Fox News Digital. "Having more money to pay for extra treatment, earlier diagnosis and better care can also help prevent cancer death." The study did have some limitations, the researchers acknowledged — chiefly that the results show an association but do not prove that the high tax rates caused the decreased mortality. Cancer screening rates were also based on patient questionnaires, which could have some level of bias. There is also the possibility of measurement errors in the data, the researchers cautioned.
Daily Mail
05-05-2025
- Health
- Daily Mail
New study reveals how higher taxes are linked to lower cancer deaths
How much you're spending on taxes could influence your risk of cancer, a study suggests. Researchers found a link between states with high tax rates and a reduction in deaths caused by cancer. For every additional $1,000 generated through tax revenue per person each year, the death rate from cancer decreased by up to four per cent. Revenue link: A new study suggests paying higher taxes lowers the risk of dying from cancer and improves the chance of getting screened for the disease High tax states such as New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey had some of the lowest mortality rates in the country, while those with less income tax including Mississippi, Tennessee and and Kentucky were among the worst. The researchers say the reason is high tax states are more likely to offer screening and other tests to catch cancer at earlier stages. For every additional $1,000 in tax revenue, cancer screening rates generally increased by up to two per cent, the study found. The researchers - from Ohio State University, Emory University in Atlanta and University of Verona in Italy - said better outcomes for states that pay more taxes could be because those taxes are funding screening method like mobile testing sites. The researchers wrote: 'Designing tax systems based on high tax revenue and progressive policies may present one aspect of a multifactorial approach to improve cancer-related outcomes, thus mitigating persistent cancer health care inequalities in the US.' The study, published Friday in JAMA Network Open, combed through data from the US Census Bureau and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy to calculate the average tax revenue per person in each state and how much rates have changed over time. Tax revenue was calculated from 1997 to 2019. The researchers also evaluated cancer mortality data from 1991 to 2021 using CDC databases. Cancer screening rates were calculated from 2020 to 2022. The average cancer mortality rate for 2021 was 174 deaths per 100,000 white Americans. In the non-Hispanic Black population, however, the mortality rate jumped up to 206 per 100,000. Kentucky had the highest overall cancer mortality rate at 205 per 100,000 people, while Utah's rate was lowest at 133 deaths per 100,000 people. Over the course of 23 years, the average national state tax revenue per person per year was $4,432. New York had the highest tax revenue per person at $8,400 with Connecticut and New Jersey following closely behind at $7,100 and $6,800, respectively. All three states had a cancer mortality rate of 160 to 168 per 100,000 people, below the national average. The lowest tax revenue was found in Alabama ($3,300), with Tennessee ($3,400) and Mississippi ($3,500), South Carolina ($3,500) and Idaho ($3,500) following. Mississippi had the second highest cancer mortality rate at 201 per 100,000 people. Rates in Tennessee and South Carolina were 193 and 184 per 100,000 people, respectively. The researchers found that for every $1,000 tax increase, cancer mortality for all cancers decreased by two percent on average. The decrease was even greater, three percent, for white individuals. For cancers with recommended screening such as colon and breast cancer, each $1,000 tax increase per capita was associated with a four percent decrease in mortality rate. This increased to five per cent for white populations. The researchers said this could be due to increased tax amounts funding state health initiatives and screening measures. These may include mobile testing sites, subsidizing the cost of transportation to a screening test or offering financial incentives for screening. Utah, however, had the lowest cancer mortality rate but also ranked among the lowest in taxes at $3,800 per capita per year. While the researchers did not provide an explanation for this, the lower risk of death could be due to less prevalence of common risk factors. In 2022, the latest data available, Utah had the nation's lowest smoking rate at seven percent. Smoking is responsible for about nine in 10 cases of lung cancer, which causes the most deaths of any other cancer in the US. Additionally, 12 per cent of adults in Utah binge drink, which is considered four or more drinks in one sitting for women and five for men. This is the lowest percentage in the U.S. Alcohol has been shown to increase levels of hormones such as estrogen, a main driver of breast cancer. It also damages cell DNA, leading cells to grow out of control, raising the risk of them becoming cancerous. The lack of smokers and drinkers may be due to Utah's high percentage of Mormons, a religious group that shuns both habits. More than half of Utahns identify as Mormon. The researchers wrote: 'These evidence-based screening programs represent successful state-level initiatives and should highlight how government allocation of revenue can advance health care and cancer prevention goals.' However, there were no notable differences between tax increases and cancer death for minority populations. This suggests increased screening measures have not reached minority groups. There were several limitations to the research, including the data showing an association between taxes and cancer rather than a direct cause.
Daily Mail
05-05-2025
- Health
- Daily Mail
Disturbing new study reveals how everyday number all adults use can be early indicator of CANCER
How much you're spending on taxes could influence your risk of cancer, a study suggests. Researchers found a link between states with high tax rates and a reduction in deaths caused by cancer. For every additional $1,000 generated through tax revenue per person each year, the death rate from cancer decreased by up to four percent. High tax states like New York, Connecticut and New Jersey had some of the lowest mortality rates in the country, while those with less income tax like Mississippi, Tennessee and and Kentucky were among the worst. The researchers say the reason is high tax states are more likely to offer screening and other tests to catch cancer at earlier stages. For every additional $1,000 in tax revenue, cancer screening rates generally increased by up to two percent, the study found. The researchers - from Ohio State University, Emory University in Atlanta and University of Verona in Italy - said better outcomes for states that pay more taxes could be because those taxes are funding screening methods like mobile testing sites. However, there were outliers. Utah, for example, had the lowest cancer mortality of any US state and was also among the lowest tax states. Utah's lower cancer rates could be in part due to a lower prevalence of tobacco and alcohol, both of which are shown to cause cancer, and other lifestyle choices in the heavily religious state. The researchers wrote: 'Designing tax systems based on high tax revenue and progressive policies may present one aspect of a multifactorial approach to improve cancer-related outcomes, thus mitigating persistent cancer health care inequalities in the US.' The study, published Friday in JAMA Network Open, combed through data from the US Census Bureau and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy to calculate the average tax revenue per person in each state and how much rates have changed over time. Tax revenue was calculated from 1997 to 2019. The researchers also evaluated cancer mortality data from 1991 to 2021 using CDC databases. Cancer screening rates were calculated from 2020 to 2022. The average cancer mortality rate for 2021 was 174 deaths per 100,000 white Americans. In the non-Hispanic Black population, however, the mortality rate jumped up to 206 per 100,000. Kentucky had the highest overall cancer mortality rate at 205 per 100,000 people, while Utah's rate was lowest at 133 deaths per 100,000 people. Over the course of 23 years, the average national state tax revenue per person per year was $4,432. New York had the highest tax revenue per person at $8,400 with Connecticut and New Jersey following closely behind at $7,100 and $6,800, respectively. All three states had a cancer mortality rate of 160 to 168 per 100,000 people, below the national average. The lowest tax revenue was found in Alabama ($3,300), with Tennessee ($3,400) and Mississippi ($3,500), South Carolina ($3,500) and Idaho ($3,500) following. Mississippi had the second highest cancer mortality rate at 201 per 100,000 people. Rates in Tennessee and South Carolina were 193 and 184 per 100,000 people, respectively. The researchers found that for every $1,000 tax increase, cancer mortality for all cancers decreased by two percent on average. The decrease was even greater, three percent, for white individuals. For cancers with recommended screening like colon and breast cancer, each $1,000 tax increase per capita was associated with a four percent decrease in mortality rate. This increased to five percent for white populations. The researchers said this could be due to increased tax amounts funding state health initiatives and screening measures. These may include mobile testing sites, subsidizing the cost of transportation to a screening test or offering financial incentives for screening. Utah, however, had the lowest cancer mortality rate but also ranked among the lowest in taxes at $3,800 per capita per year. While the researchers did not provide an explanation for this, the lower risk of death could be due to less prevalence of common risk factors. In 2022, the latest data available, Utah had the nation's lowest smoking rate at seven percent. Smoking is responsible for about nine in 10 cases of lung cancer, which causes the most deaths of any other cancer in the US. Additionally, 12 percent of adults in Utah binge drink, which is considered four or more drinks in one sitting for women and five for men. This is the lowest percentage in the US. Alcohol has been shown to increase levels of hormones like estrogen, a main driver of breast cancer. It also damages cell DNA, leading cells to grow out of control, raising the risk of them becoming cancerous. The lack of smokers and drinkers may be due to Utah's high percentage of Mormons, a religious group that shuns both habits. More than half of Utahns identify as Mormon. The researchers wrote: 'These evidence-based screening programs represent successful state-level initiatives and should highlight how government allocation of revenue can advance health care and cancer prevention goals.' However, there were no notable differences between tax increases and cancer death for minority populations. This suggests increased screening measures have not reached minority groups. There were several limitations to the research, including the data showing an association between taxes and cancer rather than a direct cause.
Iraqi News
19-04-2025
- Health
- Iraqi News
Research identifies new cut-off points for overweight and obesity in male athletes
INA-sources New research presented at this year's European Congress on Obesity (ECO 2025, Malaga, Spain, 11–14 May) shows that the internationally recognized body mass index (BMI) cut-off points greatly overestimate overweight and obesity in male athletes. The study, from Italy, also proposes new cut-off points for overweight and obesity in this group. The study has been published in the journal Nutrients. Body mass index (BMI) is a key method for measuring people's weight status, defining whether they have normal weight, overweight or obesity. It is easily calculated by dividing an individual's weight in kilograms by the square of their height in meters. A BMI of 25 kg/m 2 or above is an indicator of overweight and a BMI of 30 kg/m 2 or above indicates obesity in white men and women of all ages, according to the World Health Organization's (WHO) categorization system. However, some research has found that this classification system may not be good at identifying overweight and obesity in athletes and its use in this group has long been subject to criticism. "BMI doesn't distinguish between body fat and lean mass, which includes muscle," explains Professor Marwan El Ghoch, of the Department of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neural Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy. "As a result, a muscular athlete with low body fat can be wrongly classified as living with overweight or obesity. Despite this, many sports organizations still rely on the traditional BMI classification system." In a new study, Professor El Ghoch and researchers from the University of Verona in Italy and Beirut University in Lebanon set out to determine how accurate the BMI cut-offs of 25 and 30 kg/m 2 are at identifying overweight and obesity in male athletes and, if they were found to be inaccurate, to establish better cut-offs. The cross-sectional study involved 622 males (average age of 25.7 years, BMI ≥ 20 kg/m 2) who had been referred to the Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, of the University of Verona, Italy, and participated in sports including soccer, rugby, basketball, volleyball, cross-fit, karate and others at a competitive level. The participants were categorized using the current BMI system and by their body fat percentage (BF%). Using the current BMI system, more than a quarter of the individuals were categorized as living with overweight or obesity. Some 451 (72.5%) individuals were of normal weight (BMI 18.5–24.99 kg/m 2), 148 (23.8%) individuals were with overweight (25 kg/m 2 –29.9 kg/m 2) and 23 (3.7%) were with obesity (30 kg/m 2 and above). Total body fat percentage (BF%) was measured using dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans—known to be a highly accurate tool for measuring body composition—according to age- and gender-specific cut-off points. A BF% of 21% or above was classified as overweight and a BF% of 26% or above was classified as obesity. Using this system, fewer than 4% of the individuals were categorized as living with overweight or obesity. Some 598 (96.1%) individuals were of normal weight, 19 (3.1%) were with overweight and five (0.8%) were with obesity. Professor El Ghoch, who led the study, says, "This demonstrates that the current BMI cut-off points are clearly flawed in determining weight status in athletes, as many of the athletes were misclassified as living with overweight or obesity, where, in reality, very few had body fat levels in this range." The researchers went on to use statistical modeling to identify more accurate BMI cut-off points for young male athletes. The new cut-offs, which take into account athletes' lower BF%, are 28.2 kg/m 2 for overweight and 33.7 kg/m 2 for obesity. Study co-author, Professor Chiara Milanese, of the University of Verona, explains, "Although DXA scans measure body composition accurately, they are not always available in sports settings. In contrast, weight and height, the two measures needed to calculate BMI, are easy to obtain and, with the new BMI cut-offs that we identified, BMI could be a highly useful tool in sports clubs, both at training grounds and in competitions. "A direct assessment of body composition remains the gold standard but, in its absence, we encourage sports organizations and committees to adopt the new BMI classification system." The authors add that several further pieces of research are needed. These include identifying new cut-offs for female athletes and, potentially, specific cut-offs for different sports, particularly those that were not included in the current study.
