How Multiple Pregnancies Could Increase Health

   The last blog entry that I posted described a common misconception about health in rural America. It was discussed that rural Americans are actually more likely than their urban counterparts to suffer from chronic health conditions. In the last entry, I discussed a new study which tied fish consumption to an improvement in overall cognitive function. While this has the possibility to improve mental health, it is also important to look at new, interesting ways to help rural Americans deal with some of the other chronic conditions, such as heart disease and stroke.

   According to another research study released this week, women who give birth to four or more children are one third less likely to die from cardiovascular disease and are also fifty percent less likely to die from a stroke. The study suggests that this is due to a longer period of elevated pregnancy hormones, although they could not say for certain. In the past, rural Americans have typically created a large family network. Only recently have the newer generations started to become more urbanized and, as a result, have fewer and fewer children. This decline in birthing rates has also coincided with an increase in chronic health conditions. Even though there are many other factors which have the potential to increase the prevalence of chronic conditions, this new study allows us to consider a possible solution to help such cases. For instance, even if having multiple pregnancies is not a financial option, there is the potential that an increase in certain hormone levels could also help to accomplish the same goal. 

Fish and Its Connection to Improved Health

   A common misconception is that rural Americans are healthier and live longer lives than the rest of the general population. Some argue that because rural life is more laid back, there is a lower degree of stress in people’s everyday lives. Others discuss how the lower amounts of air pollution or the use of locally grown, unprocessed foods lead to an overall healthier lifestyle. This, however, is not the case. In fact, as discussed in the article Rural Americans Have Less Healthcare Access: Report, it is explained that rural Americans are actually more likely than their urban counterparts to suffer from chronic health conditions. This, paired with the lack of access to quality healthcare, diminishes the health status of many rural Americans. And, without proper health care, longevity is even harder to strive for.

   Today, a groundbreaking study was presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA).

“People who eat baked or broiled fish on a weekly basis may be improving their brain health and reducing their risk of developing mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer’s disease.”

~ ScienceDaily (November 30, 2011)

Even though eating fish is not necessarily helpful to other chronic conditions such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer, this does have the potential to help with any type of chronic, cognitive impairment. Improving one’s mental health is an essential step in leading a healthy life. This, however, is made difficult by the fact that many rural Americans currently live in landlocked areas with very few bodies of water. They do not necessarily have access to fish on a weekly basis which, if changed, could greatly reduce the degree and the quantity of cognitive impairment. Even those rural areas that do have lakes, such as Minnesota, still have a high rate of Alzheimer’s disease (www.health.state.mn.us). Although not definitive, this could be due to the way in which the fish is typically prepared. According to the study, the fish must be broiled or baked, fried fish did not give the same results.

   No matter the reason, rural Americans should be made more aware of this study’s results. It is important for physicians and other health professionals to encourage a weekly intake of fish in order to not only better one’s cognitive function but to also better one’s overall health. Rural America already suffers from a shortage of qualified health professionals, which makes it even more important to find preventative treatment plans which the patient could administer themselves.

Rural Americans Not Helped by New Health Care Bill

   In just under a year, the United States will be holding their 57^th quadrennial presidential election. Campaigning has already begun and promises are already being made. Just four years ago, our now incumbent president BarackObama made a campaign promise to instill a universal health care bill by the end of his first term:

"I have made a solemn pledge that I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year."

 -- Hartford, Conn.

JUNE 23, 2007

Although both the Senate and the House passed Obama’s health care bill in 2009 and 2010, respectively, there has still been much debate surrounding the issue. As it stands, all citizens and legal residents of the United States will be required to purchase health-insurance coverage by 2014 or else face a tax penalty. Despite promising many potential benefits for our current health care system, the implementation of this particular bill does not bode well for rural America.

   One major change that U.S. citizens can expect to see is the expansion of Medicaid. According to Medicaid and Its Importance to RuralHealth, Medicaid is more highly relied upon in rural settings. After all, rural populations face higher rates of poverty and are also less likely to carry health insurance (raconline.org). Under Obama’s new, universal health care bill, Medicaid is expected to increase its total enrollees by 35-40 million in the next decade (news.heartland.org). Even though this opens up healthcare to more people, it is ultimately a detriment to the health care system. It is impossible to offer the same quality care when the supplies are not there. Furthermore, the bill also proposes budget cuts be made to the overall Medicaid system. So, not only has this new bill proposed adding 40 million enrollees, but it also proposes a decrease in total amount of accessible funds.

   As mentioned earlier, the implementation of this particular health care bill does not figure well for rural hospitals whose bulk income is primarily based off of the funds received from Medicaid. As Freudenheim discussed in his article, Hospital Groups Assess Health Care Law, Medicaid payments currently do not cover all costs, especially in a rural setting. This, paired with an increase in patients and budget cuts, is projected to nearly triple the annual shortfall payments in most hospitals. Most rural hospitals will not be able to survive this – it would simply be “unsustainable.”

   In one year, we will elect our 57^th President of the United States. No matter the outcome of the election, it is important that the chosen candidate look more closely at this health care bill and see that its actions will negatively impact a great majority of our country’s population. Rural areas already have a shortage of doctors and other health care professionals. The last thing that they need is an even greater shortage of hospitals.