News

Chelsea Police Create a Culture of Health

BUPHP_Post Object
(
    [model] => BUPHP_Post_Model Object
        (
            [_post:protected] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 4237
                    [post_author] => 8
                    [post_date] => 2018-05-02 07:00:40
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2018-05-02 11:00:40
                    [post_content] => Take a sharp right onto Fourth Street off of Boston’s Tobin Bridge going north, and you’ll immediately find yourself in Chelsea, sandwiched between a tight row of houses. If you drive up a few streets to Broadway you’ll soon see people crowding the sidewalks, and a police car parked in front of City Hall.

For Boston locals, Chelsea does not have the best reputation. Known for a high population of residents with substance use disorder, Chelsea has not been looked to as a model of public health by other cities. But the Chelsea Hub, a collaboration between the police department and public safety, health, and social services is changing that. Chelsea’s old reputation “is not today’s reality,” said City Manager, Thomas Ambrosino.

Chelsea was one of eight U.S. communities to win a $25,000 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Culture of Health Prize in 2017. According to Ambrosino, “we wowed them with the level of collaboration” within the city. Chelsea’s Hub, based on a Canadian model, facilitates that collaboration.

Daniel Cortez, Community Engagement Specialist at the Chelsea Police Department, oversees the Hub’s weekly meetings. “I play the role of cheerleader sometimes,” said Cortez. Each Thursday morning, he and fifteen or so colleagues (police officers, child protective services and city code enforcement agents, social workers, substance-use counselors and recovery coaches, and medical center staff), gather around a table at the Chelsea Police Department and talk about individuals who need access to their services.

While each of these services existed before the Hub came to Chelsea in 2015, they didn’t collaborate as much in the past. “The community came to together, all service providers,” said Jason Owens, a community liaison with Roca Inc., a Chelsea-based organization that helps young men and women at risk of incarceration get back to school or work. “There are no more silos in our community so we can better serve our city."
The Chelsea Hub provides a way for people from different agencies to meet each other and learn about new ways to deliver services and serve the community efficiently, according to Cortez.  
The Hub provides a way for people from different agencies to meet each other and learn about new ways to deliver services and serve the community efficiently, according to Cortez. “We’re able to mobilize and deliver services faster than ever before,” he said. For law enforcement, the Hub means a new approach to public safety. Before their close relationship with social services took shape, the police would respond to the same houses and the same people repeatedly. They would address the immediate crime, but the root of the issue remained. Now, “they know there’s a place someone can be referred to,” said Cortez. “I think the police feel like they have more tools in their toolbox.” Because the program is so new, Chelsea only has anecdotal reports of success. But police departments in Canada using this method have reported that 79% of their interventions reach closure in two weeks or less. In one district, an evaluation found a significant drop in violent and property crime rates. In addition to the Hub, Chelsea’s police offer addiction services and youth community outreach programs. “Our police department does a good job of engendering trust in the community,” said Ambrosino. Their addiction recovery initiative, based on the Gloucester Police Department’s ANGEL program, aims to prevent overdoses and encourage utilization of treatment services. The department also hosts a youth athletic league, summer internships for high school students, a community criminal justice class for high school students, and a youth police initiative that allows teenagers and officers to build positive relationships. Walking down Broadway, jostling shoulders with people on the sidewalks, you can see the Tobin Bridge in the distance. This structure connecting Boston and Chelsea looms over the smaller city. Yet despite its size, the city of Chelsea has given its residents resources comparable to its larger neighbor, making collaboration between governmental service providers central to enriching the public health of the community. Photo: Jacqueline Rocheleau [post_title] => Chelsea Police Create a Culture of Health [post_excerpt] => The Chelsea Hub is a collaboration between police and social services to promote public health in the city. Chelsea won a $25,000 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Culture of Health Prize in 2017. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => chelsea-police-create-a-culture-of-health [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-05-07 08:19:10 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-05-07 12:19:10 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.publichealthpost.org/?post_type=bu_news&p=4237 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => bu_news [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [extra_args] => Array ( ) [owner] => BUPHP_Post Object *RECURSION* [_trigger_error:WPLib_Base:private] => 1 ) [view] => BUPHP_Post_View Object ( [multipage] => [extra_args] => Array ( ) [owner] => BUPHP_Post Object *RECURSION* [_trigger_error:WPLib_Base:private] => 1 ) [extra_args] => Array ( ) [owner] => [_trigger_error:WPLib_Base:private] => 1 )

The Chelsea Hub is a collaboration between police and social services to promote public health in the city. Chelsea won a $25,000 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Culture of Health Prize in 2017.

...more
News

Crisis Pregnancy Centers Center Stage at SCOTUS

BUPHP_Post Object
(
    [model] => BUPHP_Post_Model Object
        (
            [_post:protected] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 4189
                    [post_author] => 8
                    [post_date] => 2018-04-23 06:55:10
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2018-04-23 10:55:10
                    [post_content] => The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) is challenging the California Reproductive FACT (Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency) Act before the U.S. Supreme Court. On March 20, 2018, SCOTUS heard oral arguments in the NIFLA v. Becerra case.

What is the Reproductive FACT Act?

The Reproductive FACT Act was signed into law in California by Governor Jerry Brown on October 9, 2015. The law requires licensed medical facilities to post a notice stating that California has public programs where low-income women can access free or inexpensive family planning services, including abortion. It also requires unlicensed facilities, such as crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), to post a notice stating that they are not a licensed medical facility. The notice that the licensed facilities must post states:

“California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at [insert the telephone number].”

The notice that unlicensed facilities must post states:

“This facility is not licensed as a medical facility by the State of California and has no licensed medical provider who provides or directly supervises the provision of services.”

What are crisis pregnancy centers?

The mission of CPCs is to dissuade women from having abortions. These unlicensed facilities are often mistaken for medical clinics. Generally, though, there are no licensed medical staff present. CPCs are often located near licensed reproductive health clinics to confuse women seeking abortions and other family planning services. They use a variety of tactics to achieve this goal, including providing false information about the risks of abortion. Women are often told that having an abortion can lead to an increased risk of breast cancer or infertility, contrary to scientific evidence.

NIFLA’s Argument

NIFLA argued that the requirement to post the notices above violates the right to free speech guaranteed under the First Amendment. Michael P. Farris, representing NIFLA, said, “California took aim at pro-life pregnancy centers by compelling licensed centers to point the way to an abortion and imposing onerous advertising rules on unlicensed centers that do not provide ultrasounds or any other medical services.” When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked if it would also be unconstitutional to require abortion providers to tell patients that services were available if they chose to carry their pregnancies to term, Farris argued that it would not. He cited the Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey ruling upholding most of Pennsylvania’s informed consent and waiting period requirements. He also cited Harris v. McRae, saying that the decisions in these cases “indicated that the state has an additional interest beyond the health of the woman in the interest of advancing the life of the unborn child, to a degree.” Farris also argued that the California statute targets pro-life pregnancy centers. He reasoned that the law is limited to primarily nonprofit community clinics, excluding private practices. He stated that “clinics that are in general practice” are exempt from this requirement, as well as clinics that sign up for the California Family PACT program. Based on these exemptions, Farris argued that the only facilities targeted are pro-life pregnancy centers.

Becerra’s Argument

Joshua A. Klein, representing the respondents, also cited Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey in his argument, stating that the notices ensure patients are fully informed about their choices. He also argued that the law “empowers the woman by explaining that her financial circumstance does not make her unable to access alternative and supplemental care.” When asked about the NIFLA claim that the statute targets crisis pregnancy centers, Klein said, “Your Honor, the disclosure is targeted at women who seek free care for pregnancy, not at any particular viewpoint.” Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. challenged Klein on the numerous exempted facilities, such as private practices and clinics in the California Family PACT program. Klein responded that the state was trying to apply the speech requirements narrowly, something, he said, the Court has argued for in the past. Klein also argued that the law targets nonprofit clinics because they typically see women in need of low-cost or free pregnancy services. He stated that California Family PACT providers are exempt from posting the notice because they receive incentives to help women enroll in state healthcare programs. Finally, Klein cited Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel in his argument. The decision in Zauderer states that requiring the dissemination of factual information is constitutional as long as it meets two conditions: 1) it is not “unduly burdensome”, and 2) it is “reasonably related to the State’s interest in preventing deception of consumers.”

When will we know the Court’s decision?

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to announce its decision in June 2018. Feature image: Phil Roeder, Supreme Court of the United State, used under CC BY 2.0 [post_title] => Crisis Pregnancy Centers Center Stage at SCOTUS [post_excerpt] => NIFLA v. Becerra, currently before the Supreme Court, is a challenge to California's Reproductive FACT Act, which requires unlicensed facilities such as crisis pregnancy centers to post a notice stating that they are not a licensed medical facility. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => crisis-pregnancy-centers-center-stage-at-scotus [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-04-23 06:58:00 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-04-23 10:58:00 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.publichealthpost.org/?post_type=bu_news&p=4189 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => bu_news [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [extra_args] => Array ( ) [owner] => BUPHP_Post Object *RECURSION* [_trigger_error:WPLib_Base:private] => 1 ) [view] => BUPHP_Post_View Object ( [multipage] => [extra_args] => Array ( ) [owner] => BUPHP_Post Object *RECURSION* [_trigger_error:WPLib_Base:private] => 1 ) [extra_args] => Array ( ) [owner] => [_trigger_error:WPLib_Base:private] => 1 )

NIFLA v. Becerra, currently before the Supreme Court, is a challenge to California’s Reproductive FACT Act, which requires unlicensed facilities such as crisis pregnancy centers to post a notice stating that they are not a licensed medical facility.

...more
News

New Crew 2018

BUPHP_Post Object
(
    [model] => BUPHP_Post_Model Object
        (
            [_post:protected] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 3686
                    [post_author] => 8
                    [post_date] => 2018-02-01 07:00:29
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2018-02-01 12:00:29
                    [post_content] => We are beginning 2018 with a new Associate Editor, Dr. Jennifer Beard, three new writing Fellows, Sampada Nandyala, Chrissy Packtor, and Erin Polka (introduced below), and with continuing gratitude to our growing number of readers. It’s an honor to start this second year of publication, posting a new piece of Public Health every day with a weekly wrap-up on Fridays, at a moment when the U.S. has seen two consecutive years of declining life expectancy and our nation’s health is increasingly endangered. We plan to expand our stories, research, viewpoints, interviews, and databytes in ways that surprise you and keep your attention on the important ideas and solutions that can make us all healthier.  —Michael Stein, MD, Executive Editor

I am delighted to be joining the Public Health Post team in the role of associate editor because I believe passionately in our mission to provide a forum for stimulating, evidence-based conversations about topics critical to the health of all. PHP’s guiding metaphor has been an ongoing dinner party featuring fascinating guests and whip-smart graduate students talking about everything under the public health sun: from safe injection facilities to self-care when reporting difficult stories, preventing sexually transmitted infections in Detroit, and health care professionals who participate in torture. A key theme running through this conversation is how we translate and communicate the science and ethos of public health into policy and practice. What background knowledge should we assume our audience to have? What words do we use? How do we define those words? And what, for that matter, do we mean by “public health.”

These are questions I am eager to debate during our editorial meetings and in the articles we publish in 2018. I come to PHP as a faculty member in a Department of Global Health by way (a long time ago) of a PhD program in English literature followed several years later by a master’s degree in public health. I’ve been teaching writing in one form or another since 1991 and doing my best to train public health students to write clear, succinct, arguments grounded in evidence for over a decade. I find the topic of how we talk about what we do with one another and the rest of the world to be endlessly fascinating and critically important. Over the next year, I plan to explore these topics and encourage our readers to contribute your thoughts on public health language, communication, writing, etc. Are you interested in the language of public health and the ways in which we communicate? Please share your ideas with me at jenbeard@bu.edu.

I will kick off the conversation tomorrow, by returning to a question David Jones posed in our first week of publication with some thoughts on the definition of “public health. —Jen Beard, Associate Editor

Public Health Post Fellows 2018

Sampada Nandyala is an MPH candidate at BUSPH studying epidemiology and infectious diseases. She received her BS in public health with a certificate in Public Health Management from Rutgers University’s Edward Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy. She was a Scientific Strategy Intern at the healthcare marketing agency McCann Echo, Public Policy Intern at Hyacinth AIDS Foundation, and Sustainability and Community Development Intern at Greener by Design. She wrote weekly articles as an intern for College Fashionista for two years. Chrissy Packtor is an MPH candidate at BUSPH studying health communication & promotion and sex, sexuality, and gender. She received her BS in biology and psychology from West Virginia University with a minor in women’s and gender studies, graduating Magna Cum Laude with University Honors.  She was the Outreach and Communications intern for West Virginia Focus: Reproductive Education and Equality (WV FREE), Public Affairs Intern for Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, and the President and Social Media Chair of WVU Students for Reproductive Justice. Erin Polka is an MPH candidate at BUSPH studying biostatistics and epidemiology. She received her BA from the University of Colorado, Boulder in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. She works as a research assistant at the Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology, and was an an Agricultural Extension Officer for the Peace Corps in Tanzania where she worked alongside community members on grassroots agricultural and health projects. She received a grant from the President’s Emergency Fund for AIDS Relief and is fluent in Swahili. Feature image: left to right: Chrissy Packtor, Erin Polka, Michael Stein, Sampada Nandyala, Jen Beard. Photo: Michael Saunders.  [post_title] => New Crew 2018 [post_excerpt] => We're delighted to welcome our new cohort of PHP fellows: Sampada Nandyala, Chrissy Packtor, and Erin Polka! Executive Editor Michael Stein and Associate Editor Jennifer Beard also join the PHP team. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => new-crew [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2019-04-11 14:45:16 [post_modified_gmt] => 2019-04-11 18:45:16 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.publichealthpost.org/?post_type=bu_news&p=3686 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => bu_news [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [extra_args] => Array ( ) [owner] => BUPHP_Post Object *RECURSION* [_trigger_error:WPLib_Base:private] => 1 ) [view] => BUPHP_Post_View Object ( [multipage] => [extra_args] => Array ( ) [owner] => BUPHP_Post Object *RECURSION* [_trigger_error:WPLib_Base:private] => 1 ) [extra_args] => Array ( ) [owner] => [_trigger_error:WPLib_Base:private] => 1 )

We’re delighted to welcome our new cohort of PHP fellows: Sampada Nandyala, Chrissy Packtor, and Erin Polka! Executive Editor Michael Stein and Associate Editor Jennifer Beard also join the PHP team.

...more
News

Success and Setbacks in Rural Health Systems

BUPHP_Post Object
(
    [model] => BUPHP_Post_Model Object
        (
            [_post:protected] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 2947
                    [post_author] => 8
                    [post_date] => 2017-10-06 07:00:30
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2017-10-06 11:00:30
                    [post_content] => Ripton, Vermont, a tiny town of 588 in Addison County, was described by Jessica Ravitz of CNN as “…the kind of place where cell service fails more often than it works…and the fog lifts to reveal a white horse grazing in a field." 2093 miles and 32 driving hours away is Ten Sleep, Wyoming, a tiny town of 260 located in the western foothills of the Big Horn Mountains.

Both towns are located in the most rural states in America: Vermont and Wyoming are ranked 49th and 50th respectively in terms of population and each state has only one representative in the U.S. House. The states have striking similarities on many fronts: per-capita income is nearly the same, the unemployment rate is 3.9% vs. 3.2%, and both states have a historic hunting pedigree.

But there is a striking difference between the two states in terms of the performance of their healthcare systems. The Commonwealth Fund Scorecard on State Health System Performance ranks Vermont first in terms of overall performance, while Wyoming ranked a distant 25th. Vermont ranked first in access, defined by the uninsured rate, the number of people who went without care because of costs, and adults without a dental visit in the past year. Wyoming ranked 34th. (For more information on methodology, see the report’s methods section.)
One of the most important dynamics of the years since the ACA’s passage is that the states with the worst health system performance and worst health outcomes tended to be the staunchest opponents.  
Attention is shifting to states in the aftermath of the failed attempt by Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA). One of the most important dynamics of the years since the ACA’s passage is that the states with the worst health system performance and worst health outcomes tended to be the staunchest opponents. Research from The Commonwealth Fund shows that: “…states that accepted federal funding to expand their Medicaid programs under the Affordable Care Act outperformed states that did not expand Medicaid.” As Vermont expanded Medicaid and decreased the uninsured rate to 6%, Wyoming rejected Medicaid and has even seen its uninsured rate grow to 14%. The following figure shows three key ways that Medicaid expansion states have outperformed non-expansion states: Graph showing improvement in healthcare access in states that expanded Medicaid There is a lot more to health than insurance and access to care. Wyoming has a pretty high “healthy lives” ranking at 18th compared to Vermont at #5. But as the ACA remains the law of the land and opposition remains entrenched, there is a real risk that the disparity between high and low performing states will widen even further. Feature image: faungg's photos, The view along the Scenic Drive 287 in Wyoming, used under CC BY-ND 2.0  Graph by The Commonwealth Fund.   [post_title] => Success and Setbacks in Rural Health Systems [post_excerpt] => Vermont and Wyoming have similarities on many fronts, but there is a striking difference between the two states in terms of the performance of their healthcare systems. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => success-setbacks-rural-health-systems [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2017-10-10 07:00:03 [post_modified_gmt] => 2017-10-10 11:00:03 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.publichealthpost.org/?post_type=bu_news&p=2947 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => bu_news [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [extra_args] => Array ( ) [owner] => BUPHP_Post Object *RECURSION* [_trigger_error:WPLib_Base:private] => 1 ) [view] => BUPHP_Post_View Object ( [multipage] => [extra_args] => Array ( ) [owner] => BUPHP_Post Object *RECURSION* [_trigger_error:WPLib_Base:private] => 1 ) [extra_args] => Array ( ) [owner] => [_trigger_error:WPLib_Base:private] => 1 )

Vermont and Wyoming have similarities on many fronts, but there is a striking difference between the two states in terms of the performance of their healthcare systems.

...more
News

New Budget, Old Problems: Public Health Challenges in Illinois

BUPHP_Post Object
(
    [model] => BUPHP_Post_Model Object
        (
            [_post:protected] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 2964
                    [post_author] => 8
                    [post_date] => 2017-09-20 07:00:21
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2017-09-20 11:00:21
                    [post_content] => Illinois had no state budget for more than two years, causing myriad public problems in one of the most populous states in the U.S. On July 6, 2017, the Illinois state legislature enacted a full budget with bipartisan support, over the veto of Republican Governor Bruce Rauner. I highlighted some of the public health impacts of the Illinois budget crisis for Public Health Post in December 2016, including disastrous funding issues for local and state public health organizations and social service providers. While the new budget is a critical first step towards restoring vital public health programs and services, policymakers, service providers, and citizens face ongoing uncertainty and long-term repercussions across Illinois.

The budget passed in July 2017 is focused on re-establishing state funding in several key areas, accomplished largely through increases in personal and corporate income taxes. First and foremost, the budget helps Illinois begin to pay for both the ongoing costs of state functioning and the $15 billion in unpaid bills resulting from the two-year budget crisis. Achieving this basic level of financial functioning was also essential to Illinois’s recovery as it stabilized the state’s credit rating, which plummeted during the budget crisis but just barely avoided hitting “junk” status. This would have been an unprecedented and extensive financial problem for the state. Even with a budget in place, Illinois continues to face significant financial problems, including the yet-unresolved challenge of meeting its $130 billion obligation in pension liability, which in part prompted the budget crisis in 2015.

The continuing problem of the state’s pension debt and the ongoing negative impact of the state’s poor credit rating serve as present threats to the stability and reliability of all state funding and therefore are critical components of Illinois’s commitment to public health and well-being. The new budget allocates vital funds to health, education, and social service providers, but many institutions and agencies remain anxious about rebuilding programs and rehiring staff with the specter of the budget crisis so present. The new budget includes regular funding for suffering K-12 public education, decimated social service providers, and desperate public universities, many of which were facing the prospect of shutting their doors if money did not arrive this fall. However, this year’s funding does not resolve the challenges these organizations face in repairing the problems created over the last two years.
...Illinois’s most vulnerable students stand to suffer most from the budget crisis’s impact on public higher education, exacerbating disparities in higher education achievement along income, race, and socioeconomic lines.  
Public higher education is not the most direct influencer of public health in a state, but ample scientific evidence links more education with better health, and Illinois’s most vulnerable students stand to suffer most from the budget crisis’s impact on public higher education, exacerbating disparities in higher education achievement along income, race, and socioeconomic lines. The budget crisis delayed or eliminated critical grant and scholarship funding otherwise available to low-income and first-generation college students, and the new budget cuts prior public higher education funding by 10%. Financially vulnerable students, and first-time college students facing other barriers and alternatives to college attendance, may have been unable to begin, remain in, or continue full-time in college due to the budget crisis. Under the new budget, many of these students may still face financial barriers to college from reduced state funding, or they may question, with good reason, the state’s reliability as a funder of their educations. Further, universities (like Chicago State University) and community colleges (like that in Kankakee) dedicated to the education of students with fewer financial and network resources to attend other institutions felt the sting of the budget crisis particularly strongly, losing scores of faculty and staff, serving fewer students, and eliminated important supports like campus-based child care for students, none of which can be remedied quickly, even with a new budget in place.
Compared to those without, people with a college degree live longer, have lower rates of chronic illness, and experience risk factors like high stress and smoking at lower rates.  
All of these factors matter to public health because education is a clear social determinant of health. Compared to those without, people with a college degree live longer, have lower rates of chronic illness, and experience risk factors like high stress and smoking at lower rates. Research has gotten sophisticated enough to separate out direct impacts of education on health from correlations that might reflect common causes of both lower education and poorer health (like systemic racism, or childhood trauma). For instance, scholars at the National Bureau of Economic Research offer evidence that college education directly impacts mortality, particularly related to access to health insurance, health care, and opportunities to practice health-promoting behaviors among those with college degrees. In Illinois, the two-year budget impasse and the ongoing effects of the budget crisis on public higher education have disproportionately harmed those college students and potential college students who are already most vulnerable to poor health outcomes due to poverty and racism. Renewed public funding for K-12 schools and health, mental health, and social service agencies is essential to promoting public health in Illinois, but the state’s higher education institutions and the students who rely on them face continued challenges with clear negative consequences for individual and community health. Feature image: Tom Shockey, Springfield Illinois, used under CC BY 2.0 [post_title] => New Budget, Old Problems: Public Health Challenges in Illinois [post_excerpt] => The ongoing effects of the Illinois budget crisis, in particular on public higher education, have clear negative consequences for individual and community health. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => illinois-new-budget-old-problems [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2017-09-21 14:08:25 [post_modified_gmt] => 2017-09-21 18:08:25 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.publichealthpost.org/?post_type=bu_news&p=2964 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => bu_news [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [extra_args] => Array ( ) [owner] => BUPHP_Post Object *RECURSION* [_trigger_error:WPLib_Base:private] => 1 ) [view] => BUPHP_Post_View Object ( [multipage] => [extra_args] => Array ( ) [owner] => BUPHP_Post Object *RECURSION* [_trigger_error:WPLib_Base:private] => 1 ) [extra_args] => Array ( ) [owner] => [_trigger_error:WPLib_Base:private] => 1 )

The ongoing effects of the Illinois budget crisis, in particular on public higher education, have clear negative consequences for individual and community health.

...more
News

UPDATE: The Refugee Crisis and Returning Home

BUPHP_Post Object
(
    [model] => BUPHP_Post_Model Object
        (
            [_post:protected] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 2519
                    [post_author] => 8
                    [post_date] => 2017-07-21 07:00:50
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2017-07-21 11:00:50
                    [post_content] => In March I wrote about the world’s response to a massive refugee and displaced persons crisis. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR) has since come out with new data showing that the problems are getting even worse.

Three statistics jump out at me as particularly important:

• 67.75 million people are now considered to be ‘persons of concern.’ Persons of concern is a catchall designation that is made up not just of refugees, but also of internally displaced persons (IDPs), asylum-seekers, stateless persons, and returnees, among others. The number of persons of concern is nearly 4 million more than at the end of 2015.

• 5 million people have returned to their country of origin. This is the biggest data swing in the 2016 data. For example, more than 600,000 displaced Syrians returned to their original homes even though much of Syria is left in ruins. In Iraq, 1.40 million people have made their way home with UNHCR help. In Yemen, bombing campaigns and drought are still ravaging the country, but 974,059 have returned.

• The number of IDPs in Colombia increased from 6.9 million to 7.4 million, very nearly matching the number at Syria’s peak during their civil war. IDP numbers have also gone up in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Somalia, Afghanistan, Ukraine and South Sudan because of war, drought, famine, disease, and extreme poverty.

[ictt-tweet-inline]The number of returnees in 2016 was higher than any year in the past three decades.[/ictt-tweet-inline] The emotional connection to ‘home’ is not easily pushed aside; given the chance, many are going back. Abo Adnan, a Syrian refugee, wrote, in a plea to European leaders to help refugees move back home, “All the Syrians [in Germany] are so grateful for the welcome people have given us but we want to live in Syria, not Germany.” [ictt-tweet-inline]The UNHCR helps refugees return to their country of origin via their ‘voluntary repatriation’ program. [/ictt-tweet-inline]The organization provides safety and security, including essential infrastructure, in order to facilitate the process of return. The UNHCR writes that the return program is “…the durable solution of choice for the largest number of refugees…” Feature image: UNHCR Population Statistics interactive website [post_title] => UPDATE: The Refugee Crisis and Returning Home [post_excerpt] => Three important statistics from new data released by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR) on the world's refugee and displaced persons crisis. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => refugee-crisis-returning-home [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2017-09-01 22:42:14 [post_modified_gmt] => 2017-09-02 02:42:14 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://www.publichealthpost.org/?post_type=bu_news&p=2519 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => bu_news [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [extra_args] => Array ( ) [owner] => BUPHP_Post Object *RECURSION* [_trigger_error:WPLib_Base:private] => 1 ) [view] => BUPHP_Post_View Object ( [multipage] => [extra_args] => Array ( ) [owner] => BUPHP_Post Object *RECURSION* [_trigger_error:WPLib_Base:private] => 1 ) [extra_args] => Array ( ) [owner] => [_trigger_error:WPLib_Base:private] => 1 )

Three important statistics from new data released by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR) on the world’s refugee and displaced persons crisis.

...more
News

Trump Voters for Single Payer

BUPHP_Post Object
(
    [model] => BUPHP_Post_Model Object
        (
            [_post:protected] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 2584
                    [post_author] => 8
                    [post_date] => 2017-07-19 07:00:54
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2017-07-19 11:00:54
                    [post_content] => Mitch McConnell has hit another stumbling block in his quest to repeal Obamacare. At least four Senators have announced they will not support the replacement bill Senate leadership has been trying to advance. Jerry Moran (R-KS) and Susan Collins (R-ME) oppose the bill because it's too aggressive while Rand Paul (R-KY) and Mike Lee (R-UT) say it's not aggressive enough. This is a very tough needle to thread given that McConnell can only afford to lose two votes.

Four Options

Republican leaders have four options at this point: 1) work with Democrats to do reforms that both sides agree are needed, 2) try again to find a compromise that would appeal to exactly 50 Republican Senators, 3) give up and move on to something else, or 4) follow calls from President Trump and Ben Sasse (R-NE) to vote now to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) but with an effective date a few years down the road, giving Republicans time to work on a compromise. Working backwards through these options, delay and replace is a terrible idea that almost certainly won't work. Republicans have had seven years to come up with a replacement to the ACA, there is little reason to believe that anything will change in the next year or two. I'm skeptical enough Senators would agree to this. I need to ask my lawyer and parliamentarian friends, but [ictt-tweet-inline]could delay and replace be done through reconciliation? [/ictt-tweet-inline]If not the vote threshold would be 60 instead of 50. There are not 60 votes for this in the Senate. Moving on makes the most sense politically. The people who are under the most pressure to repeal Obamacare can say they did everything possible and it's not their fault repeal failed. The House can blame the Senate. Conservative Senators can blame McConnell or the moderates. In any case, Republican members of Congress may rather oppose Obamacare than replace it. It's much easier and politically more valuable to continue criticizing something than to have to figure out how to fix it or risk being blamed for all the negative implications of the fix. [ictt-tweet-inline]Is it too cynical of me to suspect that some Republicans hope they can't get a bill through?[/ictt-tweet-inline] If I had to bet money I would guess that McConnell chooses option two, keep trying to thread the needle to get exactly 50 votes to support something – anything. I don't know what that compromise would be, but the path would likely be to cast the moderates aside and try to win over hard-liners like Mike Lee and Rand Paul. I don't expect McConnell to work on a bi-partisan compromise. He told Republicans that if they couldn't agree among themselves he would would work with Democrats and the product would be more moderate than they would like. His comments in the day since the latest bill failed suggest he was not serious and that this threat of bi-partisanship was merely an attempt at leverage to convince hold-outs to give in.

Single Payer?

There is a fifth option that won't be considered but maybe should be: single payer. I have heard a lot more chatter about single payer lately, but I have dismissed it as coming from young naive students who don't appreciate the level of opposition to expanding the role of government or from liberal New Englanders out of touch with the rest of the country.
But then the most interesting thing happened – she pivoted to saying that Reagan didn't fully oppose Canadian-style health care and that if he were around now he would support it. "I think the way Canada has it is it. We want it!"  
A conversation I had last week with a Trump voter in Mississippi changed my perception about the source and degree of support for single payer. This person works in healthcare, dislikes Obamacare, and is proud to support Trump. "He's got a mouth. He's bold. We need that," she told me. "We are bold people down here. We're stand-up people, mouthy. Some of us feel like the forgotten and the only way to be heard is to be heard. I like him for that." She is furious that no one in Washington is standing up to the insurance industry. She is not optimistic about the bills advanced by Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell because they retain a prominent role for private insurers. She thinks it is obscene that insurance companies are making record profits while squeezing patients with higher premiums and higher deductibles while also squeezing providers with lower reimbursements. "No other industry gets to decide its prices," she told me. "We feel fortunate to get 20% of what we billed... Whether we have Obamacare, the new Republicans, or whatever, we won't solve the problems until we get a hold of that." I tried to unpack her perspective by asking if she would support a system in which the government would set prices for all procedures. We could keep private insurance but change their role from a for-profit industry with a fiduciary responsibility to make money to having more of an administrative function. I didn't tell her I was describing key elements of the French health care system. She loved it. I inquired further, this time telling her about a fascinating article I read suggesting that Trump voters would support a  single payer health care system. This time I told her I was thinking of Canada as a model. Before I could even finish my question she was saying "Amen. Amen. Yes please!" She would love that her practice could focus on care rather dealing with insurance companies who make money by denying claims. She could build a business model around predictable prices. I pointed out that Bernie Sanders and Democrats going back to the 1960s and beyond have proposed government-run universal health care but that people like Ronald Reagan killed it by labeling it big government socialism. She swooned at the mention of Reagan, interrupting herself to say how much she loves him. "That president was good. He had common sense." But then the most interesting thing happened – she pivoted to saying that Reagan didn't fully oppose Canadian-style health care and that if he were around now he would support it. "I think the way Canada has it is it. We want it!"   This obviously should be taken with a grain of salt as one conversation with one Trump voter, but her comments are consistent with what others have been hearing and with what Donald Trump himself said during a meeting with the Australian Prime Minister. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that a majority of Americans now favor single-payer. Support is considerably lower among Republicans, but more work needs to be done by pollsters to understand how Trump supporters think about single payer. Trump clearly does not play by the same partisan left-right rules as everyone else, but might be the best positioned president in decades to advance single payer. Feature image: Daniel Lobo, Sanidad universal, used under CC BY 2.0.  Graph from Kaiser Family Foundation. [post_title] => Trump Voters for Single Payer [post_excerpt] => Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has four options now that his latest bill has failed. Single payer probably isn’t one of them, but maybe should be according to many Trump voters. Could Donald Trump be the single payer president? [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => trump-voters-single-payer [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2017-09-01 22:40:41 [post_modified_gmt] => 2017-09-02 02:40:41 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://www.publichealthpost.org/?post_type=bu_news&p=2584 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => bu_news [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [extra_args] => Array ( ) [owner] => BUPHP_Post Object *RECURSION* [_trigger_error:WPLib_Base:private] => 1 ) [view] => BUPHP_Post_View Object ( [multipage] => [extra_args] => Array ( ) [owner] => BUPHP_Post Object *RECURSION* [_trigger_error:WPLib_Base:private] => 1 ) [extra_args] => Array ( ) [owner] => [_trigger_error:WPLib_Base:private] => 1 )

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has four options now that his latest bill has failed. Single payer probably isn’t one of them, but maybe should be according to many Trump voters. Could Donald Trump be the single payer president?

...more
News

On to the Senate

BUPHP_Post Object
(
    [model] => BUPHP_Post_Model Object
        (
            [_post:protected] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 1970
                    [post_author] => 6
                    [post_date] => 2017-05-05 18:31:14
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2017-05-05 22:31:14
                    [post_content] => The U.S. House did something that just a few days ago I was skeptical would happen—pass legislation repealing Obamacare. Well, they passed more than 50 repeal bills between 2010 and 2016, but none of those had a chance to become law. The issue on everyone's mind now is what the Senate will do. Here are my thoughts on eight key questions:

1) How many votes are needed to pass legislation in the Senate? Usually 60, but Republicans are trying to use a special process called reconciliation that allows them to pass a law with a straight majority of 51. Democrats can't criticize because this is how they passed Obamacare in 2010. For reasons that are too complex for me to get into here but that are explained very well by Andrew Prokop of Vox, this option of passing Obamacare repeal with 51 votes won't last forever. Republicans will need to get this done sooner rather than later if they want to move on to tax reform and other issues.

2) Republicans have 52 seats in the Senate. Does that mean they have enough votes to pass the law that just passed the House? Probably not. Every concession given to  conservatives in the House makes it harder for moderate Senators to vote yes. There are only two votes to spare, so the margin is really tight. Key Republicans have made it clear they aren't just going to take the House bill as is. Take for example Lindsey Graham (R-SC) who said that "any bill that has been posted less than 24 hours...needs to be viewed with suspicion."

3) Does that mean Obamacare will likely survive and the Republican plan will be a failure? Not necessarily. I have heard/read a lot of liberals in the last 24 hours console themselves by saying the Senate will never go for the AHCA. While probably true, that's not the point. I think the main goal for House Republicans was to pass something conservative enough to appease their base and to say they have done their part to fulfill seven years of promises to repeal Obamacare. Now if it doesn't become law they can blame the Senate. In fact, Senate inaction might be their best case scenario.

4) What happens if the Senate passes something different from the House Bill? Leadership from each chamber would appoint legislators to serve on a special ad hoc conference committee to hash out a compromise between the bills passed by each chamber. The negotiations would be intense but would happen behind closed doors rather than in public or on C-SPAN. That new compromise bill would then go back to each chamber for a vote.

5) Wouldn't that conference committee bill die in the House for not being conservative enough? Supporters of the ACA shouldn't put all their hope in the idea that the positions of the far right in the House are irreconcilable with the moderates in the House and Senate. The conference committee bill likely wouldn't have everything the House Freedom Caucus wants or fought to have included in the AHCA. But at that point they will already be on record voting for the more conservative bill and so might be more willing to compromise. In fact, if we get to this point I expect House conservatives to make some surprising concessions, sort of like that House Democrats were willing to accept in 2010 when the choice was between passing the Senate bill or nothing.

I watch my students face this calculation every year during our simulation at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute on the U.S. Senate (an amazing place by the way - everyone should go). The final choice facing my students is whether to let a few things they don't like stop them from voting to pass a bill they sort of like. Each year I am amazed at the compromises they are willing to accept to get a win and secure their "legacy" of having passed something - anything!

6) Who will be given credit/blamed for the effects of the AHCA? This bill is so incredibly unpopular it's hard to imagine anyone wanting credit. None of the major stakeholders on health care support the bill, including groups that have historically played a major role such as the American Medical Association (AMA). A poll in March found that only 17% of Americans liked the AHCA. House Republicans think so little of the bill they passed yesterday that they exempted themselves from being affected by any of its provisions. But they think they will be able to avoid being blamed for increased premiums and decreases in coverage because of how the bill is structured. State flexibility on Medicaid financing and essential health benefits means that the really hard choices on cutting eligibility and benefits will have to be made by state leaders.

7) What does all this mean for the midterm elections in 2018? You should have seen the disappointed look on the faces of my students when I showed them the 2018 Senate electoral map. Democrats only need a net gain of 3 seats but there are so few opportunities that it's hard to imagine this happening, regardless of how the health reform debate plays out. The left is feeling renewed excitement about the House after a strong showing in a special election for an Atlanta seat previously held by Tom Price and Newt Gingrich. Republicans have an advantage that many districts are blatantly gerry-mandered and in many cases Democrats are too concentrated in urban centers. But Democrats are targeting the handful of Republicans who voted for the AHCA even though they live in districts won by Hillary Clinton in 2016. I don't think Democrats will win back the House, but they might be able to make up important ground and narrow the margin.

8) What about the 2020 elections? OK, I haven't heard much talk about 2020, but there should be. This is a census year in which the congressional maps are redrawn. Winning big in 2010 is a major reason Republicans have dominated the House and state legislatures over the last decade. Liberals will be hoping for a similar effect in 2020 and will be heavily motivated to stop Donald Trump's second term. Health reform will be one of their major selling points. The effects will likely spill down-ballot. Republicans voting for the AHCA could survive 2018 but still be heavily vulnerable in 2020.

I'm not sure where that leaves us, but it's going to be a fascinating summer in the Senate.

Feature image: Taken by author at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the U.S. Senate
                    [post_title] => On to the Senate
                    [post_excerpt] => What happens now that health reform shifts to the Senate? David Jones reflects on 8 key questions. Spoiler alert: It will be tighter than many liberals hope.
                    [post_status] => publish
                    [comment_status] => closed
                    [ping_status] => closed
                    [post_password] => 
                    [post_name] => on-to-the-senate
                    [to_ping] => 
                    [pinged] => 
                    [post_modified] => 2017-09-01 22:44:49
                    [post_modified_gmt] => 2017-09-02 02:44:49
                    [post_content_filtered] => 
                    [post_parent] => 0
                    [guid] => http://www.publichealthpost.org/?post_type=bu_news&p=1970
                    [menu_order] => 0
                    [post_type] => bu_news
                    [post_mime_type] => 
                    [comment_count] => 0
                    [filter] => raw
                )

            [extra_args] => Array
                (
                )

            [owner] => BUPHP_Post Object
 *RECURSION*
            [_trigger_error:WPLib_Base:private] => 1
        )

    [view] => BUPHP_Post_View Object
        (
            [multipage] => 
            [extra_args] => Array
                (
                )

            [owner] => BUPHP_Post Object
 *RECURSION*
            [_trigger_error:WPLib_Base:private] => 1
        )

    [extra_args] => Array
        (
        )

    [owner] => 
    [_trigger_error:WPLib_Base:private] => 1
)

What happens now that health reform shifts to the Senate? David Jones reflects on 8 key questions. Spoiler alert: It will be tighter than many liberals hope.

...more
News

AMA on the AHCA

BUPHP_Post Object
(
    [model] => BUPHP_Post_Model Object
        (
            [_post:protected] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 1540
                    [post_author] => 8
                    [post_date] => 2017-03-30 07:00:40
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2017-03-30 11:00:40
                    [post_content] => 

Public Health Post hosted its first live event yesterday! I sat down with Editor in Chief and Boston University professor David Jones to talk about the current state of health reform politics (and North Carolina basketball). Watch the video below to hear his thoughts on why the American Health Care Act failed, what Donald Trump and Paul Ryan will do next, and what it will mean for the midterm elections. We also talked about why Members of Congress should take more road trips together.

[post_title] => AMA on the AHCA [post_excerpt] => PHP Fellow Madeline Bishop talks with PHP editor-in-chief and Boston University professor David Jones about the current state of health reform politics (and North Carolina basketball) in our first Facebook Live broadcast. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => ama-on-ahca [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2017-09-01 22:46:41 [post_modified_gmt] => 2017-09-02 02:46:41 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://www.publichealthpost.org/?post_type=bu_news&p=1540 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => bu_news [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [extra_args] => Array ( ) [owner] => BUPHP_Post Object *RECURSION* [_trigger_error:WPLib_Base:private] => 1 ) [view] => BUPHP_Post_View Object ( [multipage] => [extra_args] => Array ( ) [owner] => BUPHP_Post Object *RECURSION* [_trigger_error:WPLib_Base:private] => 1 ) [extra_args] => Array ( ) [owner] => [_trigger_error:WPLib_Base:private] => 1 )

PHP Fellow Madeline Bishop talks with PHP editor-in-chief and Boston University professor David Jones about the current state of health reform politics (and North Carolina basketball) in our first Facebook Live broadcast.

...more
News

‘Home’ and Human Rights

BUPHP_Post Object
(
    [model] => BUPHP_Post_Model Object
        (
            [_post:protected] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 1233
                    [post_author] => 8
                    [post_date] => 2017-03-29 07:00:13
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2017-03-29 11:00:13
                    [post_content] => Aisha Yussuf Abdi, a Somali mother of seven fleeing to Ethiopia, painfully recounted her family’s suffering to Diana Diaz of the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR): “All of our cows, everything, died before our eyes.” She is part of a desperate exodus as a result of severe drought and absence of food occurring across Africa. A continent away, the Iraqi government is intensifying military operations in Mosul and citizens are exiting en masse. Ahmad, a former tea shop owner speaking from a camp outside the city reported to Caroline Gluck of the UNHCR: “The treasure that was Mosul is gone…”

[ictt-tweet-inline]The world is facing the worst refugee and displaced persons crisis in history[/ictt-tweet-inline] as people all over the world are fleeing their homes, states, and countries by the tens of millions. The magnitude of the crisis is not something humanity has encountered before, making it difficult for the media, policymakers, and the general public to digest the seriousness of the problem. Ultimately that magnitude is ever increasing. The public needs to understand the massive scope of the situation we face as a global community. Perhaps translating data can drive change.

The Data Tells the Story

The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) compiles data on Persons of Concern (PoC). Persons of Concern include refugees, but also internally displaced persons, asylum-seekers, returnees, stateless persons, and a designation of ‘others.’ The total number of PoCs has tripled between 2000 and 2015. There are now four million more refugees worldwide. There is also a more than six-fold increase in the total number of internally displaced persons (IDPs), increasing from about 6 million in 2000 to 37.5 million in 2015. Some countries, such as Colombia and Syria, have seen a particularly large increase in IDPs (6.9 million and 6.6 million respectively). The global response has been alarmingly underwhelming. The total number of refugees and asylum seekers accepted by major countries only increased 1.2 million people between 2000 and 2015. The United States and the United Kingdom actually accept fewer now. This response has been like watering a forest fire with a garden hose. The Trump administration’s approach of refusing to accept refugees is effectively turning that garden hose off. Some countries have stepped up. Most notably, Germany now accepts 350,000 more asylum-seekers and Turkey accepts 2.5 million more refugees in 2015 than in 2000. Table showing UNHRC Data 2000-2015 on Persons of Concern The following GIF, made with UNHCR maps, visually conveys the rapidly progressing scale of the crisis.  

A Home as a Human Right

[ictt-tweet-inline]The global community has failed to protect the human rights and dignity of the victims of widespread disaster.[/ictt-tweet-inline] It must be understood, as the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) stated in 1966, that the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all humans are “the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” Of particular interest are articles 11 and 12 of ICESCR, which establish the right to housing and the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. For the tens of millions of displaced persons, these rights may seem more like far off dreams. If the Trump administration dismisses these rights as superfluous idealisms or ignores the plight of displaced persons entirely, it will be acting in direct contrast to the principles the U.S. was built on. The UNHCR cannot solve this crisis alone. The powerful and wealthy nations of the world, including the U.S., have an undeniable obligation to confront this massive pandemic with the full force of their laws, coalitions and resources. Nothing less is acceptable. This is a growing catastrophe that will transcend all geopolitical lines, all walls and borders, and all isolationist policies. But above all, it will define the character, compassion, and humanity of the world in the 21st century for all of history. Feature image: IRIN Photos, "Somalia1, A woman and her young children stand in the evening light at an IDP settlement in South Galkayo, Somalia with armed police standing by. Thousands of people have been internally displaced from the South of Somalia and Mogadishu by renewed fighting in the region since the Transitional Federal Government, (TFG) backed by the Ethiopians seized control from the Islamic Court (ICU) in January 2007." Photo: Kate Holt/IRIN. Used under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0/cropped from original.  [post_title] => ‘Home’ and Human Rights [post_excerpt] => There are now four million more refugees worldwide. In the face of the worst refugee and displaced persons crisis in history, powerful and wealthy nations of the world have an undeniable obligation to confront this massive pandemic. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => home-human-rights [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2017-09-01 22:50:20 [post_modified_gmt] => 2017-09-02 02:50:20 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://www.publichealthpost.org/?post_type=bu_news&p=1233 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => bu_news [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [extra_args] => Array ( ) [owner] => BUPHP_Post Object *RECURSION* [_trigger_error:WPLib_Base:private] => 1 ) [view] => BUPHP_Post_View Object ( [multipage] => [extra_args] => Array ( ) [owner] => BUPHP_Post Object *RECURSION* [_trigger_error:WPLib_Base:private] => 1 ) [extra_args] => Array ( ) [owner] => [_trigger_error:WPLib_Base:private] => 1 )

There are now four million more refugees worldwide. In the face of the worst refugee and displaced persons crisis in history, powerful and wealthy nations of the world have an undeniable obligation to confront this massive pandemic.

...more
1 2 3 4
SHARES