HOUSTON - Texas officials are asking health insurance companies to be flexible in helping people affected by the floodwaters from Hurricane Harvey.
Many of the thousands who fled their homes during the storm may no longer have access to prescription drugs or medical equipment or be able see their family doctor or specialist.
Stacey Pogue, senior policy analyst for the Center for Public Policy Priorities, said the Texas Department of Insurance is asking insurers to cover emergency and non-emergency out-of-network care and simplify requirements for prior authorizations, referrals and medical-necessity reviews, to name a few.
"Agencies are asking insurance companies to provide some more flexibility," she said, "And so, agencies are saying, 'Hey, insurance companies, you need to relax the normal 'rules of the road' to make sure people can get health care they need after an emergency.' "
Pogue said insurers also are being asked to relax time limits on prescription refills and simplify access to medical equipment and supplies. The state is suggesting giving extra time for policyholders to make their premium payments. Most providers already have programs and policies in place to help people affected by the storm, she said, but added that there are steps evacuees and others who have trouble accessing care should take.
"I'd recommend that anybody in that situation where you can't get the health care you need, call the number on the back of your insurance card and explain that," she said, "because insurance companies and Medicaid and Medicare all have the intention of being much more flexible to ensure people can get ongoing, needed health care."
If a health insurer denies services, Pogue said, they must provide the patient with contact information for the appropriate state or federal agency to appeal that decision. She said people with employer-provided coverage should also contact the company's health plan administrator or human resources department.
Information on state bulletins is online at here and here.
get more stories like this via email
Children's Dental Health Month is wrapping up but tips for parents and guardians could help their child's health beyond their teeth.
Oral health is a keystone of overall health for people in all kinds of ways.
Dr. Jessica Lee, professor of pediatric dentistry at the University of North Carolina, said there's no separation between dental health and children's success in other areas.
"If they have a toothache or if they're uncomfortable, they don't do as well in school, they can't concentrate, they miss school days," Lee outlined. "The smaller kids, the very young kids, they can often fail to thrive. So it's really a critical part to have good dental health for a child's overall health."
Lee noted brushing is, of course, crucial for children's dental health. She recommended kids brush their teeth for two minutes, which can be a challenge. Lee suggested adults play a song to encourage kids to brush and watch closely to ensure their children are brushing correctly.
Lee emphasized it is important to watch kids' diets, adding parents can be models for good behavior.
"We have access to so much processed foods, so many refined carbohydrates, so many sugars in our diets," Lee pointed out. "Some of it's so hidden. So for parents and caregivers, just be mindful of what their child is eating."
Lee underscored some adults might be surprised to learn baby teeth can get cavities. She acknowledged treating cavities in young children is difficult.
"If you could imagine a two-year-old getting a cavity and us trying to fix it," Lee said. "It's quite a challenge because they're just too young to sit in the chair and be able to get some really heavy dental treatment done."
Lee stressed fluoridated water is safe and protective for children's dental health. She encouraged parents and guardians to speak to their dentist or pediatrician if they have questions about fluoridated water systems.
get more stories like this via email
New research found most Connecticut residents support creating a family caregiver tax credit.
The state has 420,000 family caregivers, providing a little more than $7 billion in care. Senate Bill 321 would provide a $500 nonrefundable tax credit for caregivers supporting senior family members who are 50-60 years old and receive Social Security or are under the same income limits.
Natalie Shurtleff, associate state director of advocacy and engagement for AARP Connecticut, said it is often hard work for them.
"We hear so often from family caregivers that are really that sandwich generation," Shurtleff reported. "They're caring for older loved ones while also caring for younger children and trying to juggle work."
The bill is in its earliest phases and a public hearing will occur soon. The report showed about half of unpaid family caregivers spent their own money on home modifications and buying medical equipment like wheelchairs. Monthly spending for some family caregivers varies from spending nothing to $1,000 or more a month.
Beyond the financial effects of being a family caregiver, they often face physical and mental challenges too. The AARP report noted most family caregivers in the state report feel emotionally stressed trying to balance their responsibilities. Shurtleff pointed out there are some things to keep in mind as they care for others.
"One of the things that we always try to remind family caregivers is to give themselves permission for some self-care," Shurtleff noted. "Because it's so critically important to care for one's self as well as who they're caring for."
Other health challenges they face or find difficult are getting enough rest, exercising and practicing a healthy diet, and making time for doctor's visits. The report emphasized support for a tax credit is bipartisan, with more than half of Democrat, Republican and Independent voters in favor of it.
Disclosure: AARP Connecticut contributes to our fund for reporting on Budget Policy and Priorities, Health Issues, Hunger/Food/Nutrition, and Senior Issues. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
By Grace Hussain for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Shanteya Hudson for Georgia News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s confirmation as Director of Health and Human Services — the government department that oversees the Food and Drug Administration and the Center for Disease Control among others — could be another damper for the plant-based food market. Through his “Make America Healthy Again” campaign, Kennedy has repeatedly argued that processed foods are poisoning the country, a stance he maintained throughout his confirmation hearings. And because processed foods aren’t well defined, any efforts by RFK to restrict ultra-processed foods could end up inadvertently discouraging U.S. consumers from eating plant-based foods. That would be bad news for the already-struggling plant-based industry, but also for climate change and the environment.
Though he did not support an all-out ban on processed foods during his confirmation hearing, Kennedy expressed his support for restricting school purchasing and limiting SNAP beneficiaries’ ability to purchase processed foods. While both SNAP and federal school purchases are managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and thus would be outside of Kennedy’s direct control, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services both work closely on food policy.
Now that he’s approved, Kennedy could push for a range of policies for reducing the country’s consumption of processed foods, including the FDA’s labeling requirements.
“Warning labels and taxes tend to change people’s behavior. So if you put a warning label on a product, people, on average, are a little bit less likely to buy that product. If you tax a product, people are a little bit less likely to buy it. It’s because it’s a little bit more expensive, so I would expect that those policies, if implemented, would reduce how much we eat those products,” Anna Grummon, who runs the Stanford Food Policy Lab, tells Sentient.
Defining Ultra-Processed Foods Proves Difficult
One of the factors that makes legislating processed foods difficult is the fact that not all processed foods are created equal. Some processed foods, such as sugary beverages like soda, have been linked to various health issues including diabetes and obesity. But that’s not the case for all processed foods, including plant-based meats.
The expansive category that is “processed foods” is why some policymakers and activists zeroed in on a new label: ultra-processed foods. But here too, there’s no single definition of what exactly constitutes an ultra-processed food. “That’s a challenge for making policy around ultra-processed foods,” says Grummon. “We have to have a definition we agree on, and that can be implemented by policymakers and by companies.”
Currently, the most prominent definition comes from the NOVA Food Classification System, which was proposed by researchers at the University of São Paulo. Under the system, ultra-processed foods are combinations of ingredients that are not whole foods themselves, or are “synthesized in laboratories.”
Another definition, appearing on the conservative organization Center for Renewing America’s website, notes a few factors in its definition of ultra-processed foods, including “packaged foods containing added preservatives,” and “manufactured ingredients…that extend the shelf-life of a product, enhance the taste of the product, and often result in habit-forming cravings…” (The founder of the organization was part of the first Trump Administration, and previously signaled his intent to defund the EPA, while also pushing transphobic rhetoric.)
The specific definition RFK Jr. prefers, and which would likely be replicated by the FDA, remains unclear. Regardless of the specifics of the definition, it’s unlikely to cleanly identify the least healthy foods, simply because all ultra-processed foods are not the same.
Some policies have addressed this problem by regulating nutrients, rather than the level of processing. For example, in Chile, products high in calories, sodium, sugar or saturated fat are required to have warning labels on the front of their packaging, and can’t be sold or served in schools. The approach has significantly cut how often those foods are purchased, though it doesn’t seem to have curbed obesity rates. In fact, the BBC reports obesity has increased among school children slightly since 2016 (though this may be attributable to an increase in sedentary lifestyles during COVID-19).
Policies focused on nutrient content “gets at ultra-processed foods indirectly,” says Grummon. The FDA is currently considering a rule that would require most foods to sport front-of-package nutrient labeling, ultra-processed or not.
Potential Health & Environmental Impacts of Ultra-Processed Labeling
Warning labels on ultra-processed foods sound like a good idea, but when it comes to plant-based meat, these labels could indirectly lead to negative environmental and public health impacts if consumers were to cut back on their plant-based eating habits as a result. Potential taxes that increase the cost of ultra-processed plant-based meats, like Impossible and Beyond products, are also likely to reduce the amount of those products consumers purchase, says Grummon.
“A key question is what do people switch to? Do they switch back to beef? Or do they switch to something else?,” she says. “That’s really important for understanding whether those policies would be good or bad for public health or good or bad for carbon footprint. I think if people switch back to beef, that’s not going to be good for carbon emissions, because, of course, beef has a much higher carbon footprint than Beyond and Impossible products.”
The average person in the United States already eats far more meat than the global average. For that reason and because of beef’s massive greenhouse gas emissions impact, climate research groups like the World Resources Institute include the recommendation that U.S. (and other global north) consumers eat less beef as part of their climate action plan for food-related emissions.
When researchers compare beef to plant-based alternatives, the alternatives consistently rank better, using less water and land and emitting far fewer greenhouse gasses. Other types of meat — like poultry and pork — are more moderate for greenhouse gas emissions, yet both are associated with poor animal welfare and polluting the air and water of communities that live near factory farms.
Even when looking at personal health, plant-based alternatives tend to perform as well as or slightly better than meat. Despite being categorized as ultra-processed, plant-based alternatives tend to be a little lower in fat and calories, and sometimes have more fiber than meat. On the other hand, meat tends to have less sugar and more protein per serving, and of course, individual products do vary.
If policies aimed at rolling back consumption of ultra-processed foods are enacted, many plant-based alternatives will likely be impacted, given that they’d be considered ultra-processed under the most prominent definition. “You can imagine some things being bad for sustainability, like people might eat fewer meat mimic[king] products, like Beyond and Impossible, because those are ultra-processed,” says Grummon.
A representative of The Plant Based Foods Association declined to comment for this article, stating, “given the potential regulatory outcomes are still unknown, we’d prefer not to comment at this time.”
The Bottom Line
It is possible that new policies targeting ultra-processed foods could persuade consumers to opt for more legumes over plant-based burgers or conventional meat. But given how often most U.S. consumers regularly eat lentils these days, it seems unlikely.
A new food labeling scheme could also make no difference at all. One study found that Swiss consumers already view meat substitutes as processed, regardless of the form they take; so it’s also a possibility that consumers willing to purchase plant-based alternatives won’t be swayed by new policies.
Ultimately, what policies RFK and the Trump Administration might pursue on processed and ultra-processed foods remain hard to predict, Grummon says. But many plant-based products are categorized as ultra-processed under any definition. Even if plant-based foods aren’t a particular target of policies aimed at sugary beverages or candy bars, regulatory language that focuses on the processing — instead of nutrient content — would likely end up including plant-based alternatives. These sorts of policies then could spell more trouble ahead, both for the plant-based market and the planet.
Grace Hussain wrote this article for Sentient.
get more stories like this via email