In Minnesota and nationally, the medical community is highlighting research measuring the effect of expanded telehealth during the pandemic, and the conversation is shifting toward what to do next.

A new report from the Bipartisan Policy Center said prior to the crisis, telehealth largely catered to rural areas, but when COVID surfaced, federal rules were relaxed allowing services to expand.

For example, utilization within Medicare increased from 1% of claims to 32% by April 2020.

Neerja Singh, behavioral health clinical director for the Minnesota Department of Human Services, said flexibilities also allowed different types of services to see expanded virtual care, including mental health.

"People of Minnesota really benefited," Singh asserted. "Because the access to those services otherwise would not have been possible."

Singh pointed out some of the department's initial research aligns with national findings. A detailed state report is due early next year.

There is concern many Americans will lose access to telehealth whenever the Public Health Emergency officially expires. The Bipartisan Center Report called on Congress to extend the pause in federal rules for another two years.

Julia Harris, senior policy analyst at the Center, said a two-year extension would allow the medical community to further examine a more robust delivery of telehealth. She argued now is not the time to walk away from the current approach to reaching patients.

"Unless they live in rural areas or enroll in Medicare Advantage Plans, many of them -- most of them -- will face loss of access to telehealth," Harris explained.

Harris cautioned there are some red flags associated with expanded telehealth, including some providers overprescribing medications such as Adderall, leading to a federal investigation. She also stressed the need to evaluate audio-only visits. She said they are necessary for some patients, and it is worth asking if they could be made available to everyone.

Cancer rates are on the rise, and doctors are noticing specific types in younger age groups. There are more than 100 different types of cancer with various risk factors.

The 2023 Ohio Annual Cancer Report, the latest data available, reveals the disease is the second most common cause of death. Breast, lung and colon cancer top the list as the most frequently diagnosed cancers in the state.

Dr. Raphael Cuomo, University of California San Diego professor and epidemiologist, said studies show over the last few decades, external factors are behind the upswing in cancer cases.

"We're seeing some of the sharpest increases in colorectal, breast and pancreatic cancers, especially in adults under 50, particularly those in their 30s and 40s," he explained. "So, the speed at which these cases are climbing suggests that lifestyle and environment, and not genetics, are driving the increase."

Cuomo said the influx of high-sugar, low-fiber ultra-processed foods, smoking and alcohol consumption is emerging as a frontrunner for increasing the risk of developing cancer. He says better lifestyle choices to reduce obesity and boost physical activity levels can lower the odds of receiving a cancer diagnosis.

The effects of PFAS, known as "forever chemicals," on the environment is well documented. Cuomo advises Ohioans to reduce their direct exposure to products containing PFAS and other endocrine-disrupting pollutants. He also suggests avoiding plastic containers -- especially items made with Bisphenol-A, a chemical that mimics the estrogen hormone in the body.

"A good water filter can also help reduce PFAS exposure," he said. "Switching to personal-care products that don't have parabens or phthalates is another step you can take. There have been some phthalates, such as diethylhexyl, which has been classified by the WHO as a possible human carcinogen."

Diethylhexyl is also found in manufacturing food, beverage and tobacco products, fabrics, lawn care items, textiles and leather products. Further research on the effects of regular exposure to these items shows a link to kidney cancer. Cuomo suggests avoiding nonstick cookware, another source of PFAS chemicals.

Washington state's Tribal Foundational Public Health Service is the first dedicated funding for tribes to advance public health initiatives.

In Gov. Bob Ferguson's proposed budget, it faces the risk of losing crucial funding.

Jessica McKee, Tribal Foundational Public Health Service coordinator for the American Indian Health Commission, said after the state increased funding for the service in the last biennium to $200,000 per year per tribe, some tribes were able to create their first dedicated public health position. She stressed cuts to the service would be a blow.

"If there's a reduction and the steering committee decides that some of that money has to come back from the tribes, they might not be able to maintain their public health person anymore," McKee pointed out. "That's a big deal. "

McKee said the service funds foundational aspects of public health, such as tracking maternal and child health, environmental health and communicable disease surveillance.

With a recently confirmed measles case in King County, McKee is concerned potential loss of funding for the service, coupled with the Trump administration's policies on immunizations, could create a significant public health challenge.

"If those funding streams are to be cut on top of people being vaccine hesitant, we could have a perfect storm of MMR breakouts all over the place," McKee explained.

Mckee noted a strength of the service is the funding is flexible and each tribe chooses its own public health priorities. Some tribes may be able to expand existing efforts such as training clinic staff in infection prevention. Others may use new resources to hire public health staff to write health codes.

"It is one of the opportunities for funding that really feels like it's honoring tribal sovereignty," McKee observed. "That's not always the case with funding."

Advocates are urging Maryland lawmakers to support a bill that would approve medical aid in dying for people who are terminally ill.

A poll last December found more than 70% of Marylanders supported medical aid-in-dying legislation - and more than 60% said they want that option for themselves if they were terminally ill.

Donna Smith, campaign director with the end-of-life care advocacy group Compassion & Choices, said the End of Life Option Act is about creating options for people -- options that are available to those in 10 states and the District of Columbia.

"It's just an option. No one is forced to do anything," said Smith. "The doctors aren't forced to be involved, to write a prescription; the pharmacists aren't forced to do anything. It's just an option for the very few who need it."

Opponents of the bill worry some people may be coerced into pursuing aid in dying, and some religious groups believe it violates what they view as the sanctity of life.

Advocates have tried to pass medical aid-in-dying legislation for 11 years in Maryland. In 2019, the legislation failed on the floor of the Senate in a 23-23 tie. The bill did narrowly pass in the House of Delegates.

Smith said this time, early whip counts of lawmakers show the legislation has the support to pass the General Assembly.

Smith said many of her volunteers have been terminally ill people, who spend their last days advocating for this legislation. She added she is trying to explain to lawmakers the consequences of not approving the bill.

"Their inaction leads directly to people suffering, and I want them to understand that," said Smith. "Because, personally, I'm tired of going to funerals and sending flowers because they have not acted."

Medical aid-in-dying legislation has strong support across party lines. Polling shows more than two-thirds of Republicans support the legislation, as do more than 70% of Democrats and Independents.