Across the board, Texans say they'd be healthier if the state put more resources, including money, toward nonmedical factors for their well-being, according to a new survey.

The Episcopal Health Foundation found 65% of residents think Texas should do more to address the social determinants of health, also referred to as "nonmedical drivers."

Dr. Ann Barnes, president and CEO of the Foundation, said those include access to healthy foods, quality education, being employed, adequate transportation, social networks and safe neighborhoods.

"Texans are recognizing that these are important," Barnes asserted. "If the goal is health, we should have our state and our insurers covering strategies that address those social, economic and environmental needs."

According to the survey, 65% of Texans say people would be healthier if the state spent more on these nonmedical factors, including 72% of Black residents, 75% of Hispanic Texans and 76% of young adults under age 30. Researchers also found living in low-income areas, not being able to find affordable housing, and living in areas with air, water or chemical pollution all were found to negatively affect health.

Barnes noted the medical profession now understands 80% of a person's health is influenced by factors outside the exam room. She added those upstream, nonmedical drivers are critical to prevent disease and manage chronic illness.

"Funding for food security, so that an individual who has diabetes and needs access to healthy food would actually be able to get that healthy food, which would help them control their disease," Barnes outlined.

Additional survey results show Texans also want health-insurance providers, doctors and clinics to take more steps to play a larger role in health. More than half of the respondents said they have been unemployed or had a job which did not pay well, and an equal number said they've lived in an area with poor public transportation.

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.