Now that the major political parties have finally selected their nominees for President of the United States, it's time to talk policy. Whoever wins, one thing is for certain, come 2009 there will be a new administration in the White House. Which begs the question, "What could a new president do to stimulate community health projects?"
What would you say to the new administration???
for example:
Are there barriers that could be removed to help encourage people to lead healthier, higher-quality lives, and improve the overall health of your community?
As a community collaborative leader are there issues of funding or technical support holding you back from fully implementing your improvement efforts?
Should the White House focus on community health in general or launch community initiatives specifically targeting issues like obesity, access, or workforce issues?
So what would it be? What would the next administration's White House Initiative on Community Health look like -- if you were in charge?
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
There are so many needs when it comes to community health improvement. The current debate seems to be focusing on this issue of health care insurance -- but surely education should be a large component on any new system. We need to teach people how to be wise healthcare consumers -- both in terms of quantity and quality of care.
What I see as a health care concern living in the midwest is obesity. Our tax dollars pay for gastric bypass surgeries, however, we are not implementing a healthy way of living and excercise utilities to be the first step of defense.
Instead I feel the healthcare system deals with the individual problem at the last minute rather than looking at a cost savings plan spread across all of us.
Target the users now. Devote education programs, walking alliances, you name it. Not only is gastric bypass dangerous, it is expensive, and is not teaching anything to stop the users from reaching that point.
A small piece of the large puzzle.
I agree whole heartedly with Alexandra.
it is all about the education.
we need to teach people how to use what's offered or there is no use in offering.
Louise Harrison
Education is the key, but I think it is important to target women. They are the gatekeepers for their families for access to the health system. They are also their family's main food provider. Women's education should go to where they are, rather than expecting them to come to where programs are. Why not target malls, beauty shops etc.?
Education is only one component. Behavior change is dependent on more than acquiring new knowledge. People change their behaviors because they are motivated, the change is relatively easy, they can see positive results, AND because of increased knowledge.
If you're asking about how the White House, in particular, can get involved (versus local communities or individuals), I would say removing barriers so that local communities and individuals can do the rest. Maybe they could push the health insurance engine toward prevention programs and spending, in addition to paying for medical bills. End-of-life costs are the most expensive, and health insurance companies know that. But, it would take a large investment on their part to put dollars toward prevention, while at the same time meeting commitments to people who are already sick. The payout would take years - maybe the feds could help? If you were running a business, would you take a 10 to 20 year hit in profits while changing focus?
If you really want to educate lawmakers and community leaders about something, give them the hard numbers on end-of-life care.
Other barriers to remove - incentives and better options for people who want to get active (safe trails and streets, bike trails, etc.).
They could also provide incentives to communities showing marked improvements in the health of the people - a competition of sorts among U.S. cities. Communities adjusted their speed limits in order to get additional money for highways, didn't they?
In a Washington Post series on overweight kids ("Young Lives at Risk - Our Overweight Children", Susan Levine and Lori Aratani, May 19, 2008), they talked about other countries' policy efforts to reduce the rates of overweight in kids:
"France mandated health warnings on televised food ads. Spanish officials reached agreement with industry leaders on tighter product labeling and marketing as well as reducing fat, salt and sugar in processed foods. Britain has gone the farthest, restricting food ads on TV programs catering predominantly to children and pulling sweets and sweetened drinks from schools. Eighty-five percent of all grades have at least two hours of physical education a week. The 2011 goal is five hours."
Another quote in the same article:
" 'The conflict of interest is inherent in the USDA," said Kelly Brownell, professor of psychology at Yale University and co-founder of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity. "Their main task is to promote agriculture and food, and their secondary task is to establish nutrition policy.' "
The most valuable action a new president could take to improve and ensure the sustainability of our healthcare system is to lead change by asserting the importance of health to our nations productivity, our individual safety, and our readiness to respond to a national crisis.
We have not had a strong advocate for health since C. Evertt Koop. The bully pulpit of the president can go a long way toward to galvanizing the public will and political action.
Post a Comment