Everything you wanted to know about the aging population

You would have to be living in total isolation not to know that American society is rapidly aging. But how rapidly? What’s happening to life expectancy, economics, health and related issues as our society “greys?”

The good news: Today’s older Americans enjoy longer lives and better health than did previous generations. These and other trends are reported in Older Americans 2010: Key Indicators of Well-Being, a unique, comprehensive look at aging in the United States from the Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics. This easy-to-understand report  provides an updated, accessible compendium of indicators, drawn from the most reliable official statistics about the well-being of Americans primarily age 65 and older. The indicators are categorized into five broad areas—population, economics, health status, health risks and behaviors, and health care. In addition, the site provides very nice Powerpoint slides of all charts.

No matter how old you are now, you are aging, so this information should be of interest to all of us.

ASU President urges universities to take action

Nearly all major research universities have systems in place to translate and communicate their findings into information that can benefit society.  But are U.S. universities doing enough to address the problems of contemporary life?

According to Michael Crow, President of Arizona State University, the answer is no.

Crow is on a mission to transform Arizona State University into the model for what he calls “a New American University” – an institution organized to pursue research that benefits the public good. And he is urging other universities to follow suit.

Crow believes major research institutions should take responsibility for “the economic, social, and cultural vitality and health and well-being of the community” and encourage collaboration across disciplines and with other academic institutions.

He argues that a scientific focus on narrower and more fundamental secrets of nature has impaired researchers’ ability to “think at scale and across time.” 

For Crow, this means restructuring universities so they’re more capable of responding to modern challenges. At Arizona State, he has created more than a dozen new transdiscipliniary schools, including the School of Human Evolution and Social Change, the School of Earth and Space Exploration and the School of Sustainability and the School of Life Sciences. The idea is to bring together scientists from a wide range of disciplines, engineers, policymakers and industry leaders to develop solutions to pressing real-world problems.

At the same time, ASU has eliminated traditional departments including biology, sociology, anthropology and geology.

They’re drastic measures, for certain. But changes the Crow insists are necessary if universities are going to do their part in solving major world problems, such as climate change.  Intrigued?  You can read Crow’s thoughts about reorganizing academic institutions to solve improve our world’s sustainability in the June/July 2010 issue of Bioscience. And let us know your thoughts by commenting on this post!

Fostering sustainable behavior: What works?

Everyone agrees that the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a horrendous event, one so profoundly damaging that we have trouble getting our minds around it. The corporation responsible, BP, has been excoriated in Congress and by the press. Media images of oil covered sea birds and fishing boats in dry dock daily reinforce our sense of the scope of this disaster.

Given the level of upset and outrage, one might ask: Has it changed what Americans are doing on a daily basis? Everyone knows that there’s only one real solution to problems like this: reduce dependence on oil. So are we lining up to trade in our gas guzzlers for hybrids? Winterizing our homes? Rushing to install solar panels?

The answer, of course, is no. Despite pro-environmental attitudes, a general desire for a cleaner world, and many options for action, most of us don’t take meaningful action, despite the growing sense of urgency. So what can be done to foster sustainable behavior.

I recently came across an excellent evidence-based resource, devoted entirely to disseminating research information on methods of encouraging behaviors that help the environment: Fostering Sustainable Behavior: Community-Based Social Marketing. This web site covers five resource areas: conservation, energy efficiency, transportation, waste reduction, and water efficiency. The site offers for free the complete contents of the book, Fostering Sustainable Behavior. Under each of the five themes are searchable databases of articles, case studies, and strategies to promote environmental behavior. It also has discussion forums where people exchange ideas. Registration is free. The more we can implement evidence-based strategies to help save the environment, the better off we (and our children) will be.

Local Foods: Research and policy reviewed in new resource

I love the Ithaca Farmer’s market. It’s a regular Sunday ritual in our household to drive down to the market’s home on the shore of Cayuga Lake, listen to local musicians, have breakfast courtesy of the baked goods booth, and of course fill our re-usable bags with local produce. And we’re not the only ones: The “buy local” movement is rapidly growing nationally, based on the idea that we can reduce energy use and enjoy fresher food by purchasing items grown near our home towns.

 For those of you interested in research and evidence-based policy on this topic, I recommend to you the most recent issue of Choices Magazine, published by the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association. Unlike some other journals, Choices Magazine is available on-line, free of charge. The issue — Local Food—Perceptions, Prospects, and Policies — presents survey data, review articles, and policy analyses about local food, from a variety of perspectives.

One question taken up by several authors is: What does “local” mean, exactly? Although “local food” is typically defined along the lines of a “geographic production area that is circumscribed by boundaries and in close proximity to the consumer,” the article by Michael S. Hand and Stephen Martinez shows that consensus stops there.

I found the article by Yuko Onozaka, Gretchen Nurse, and Dawn Thilmany McFadden among the most interesting. They conducted a national survey to better understand the underlying factors that motivate consumers to buy local food. They also looked how these motivations vary among buyers living in different market venues.

Why do people buy local food? Somewhat surprisingly, they found the major motivation to be an interest in health benefits, followed by several “altruistic” reasons, like supporting the local economy and helping local farmers (see figure below).

Overall, the take-home message is that most consumers think highly of locally grown products, and there is a large and growing market for food grown close to home. And hey, it gets people like me out of the house on Sunday morning!

Research re-imagined at USDA: New “Roadmap” published

The venerable U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has pioneered agricultural research for more than a century (see related post). Over the past several years,  the USDA has been reshaping its research priorities and funding programs, in part through the creation of the new National Institute of Food and Agriculture. NIFA has the mission to “advance knowledge for agriculture, the environment, human health and well-being” through funding research, education, and extension projects.

 USDA has just published a “Roadmap for USDA Science,” that is worthwhile reading. It calls for new approaches to foster robust food, agricultural, and natural resource science.

 The report begins in an interesting way. It asks us to:    

 Imagine a world in which…    

  …Radically improved children’s diets and nutrition slash long-term health care costs in the United States;

  …Farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners are recognized as significant contributors to large and sustainable reductions in global greenhouse gases;  

  …Farmers in sub-Saharan Africa have easy, affordable access to new seeds and animal breeds so well adapted to local conditions and so resilient to changing conditions that they feed five times as many people domestically and eliminate persistent hunger;  

  …Trends in availability of high-quality water and new options for watershed management outpace increasing demand for water even as climate change alters the geography of water resources; and

  …Technologically advanced production, processing, and foodborne pathogen detection methods make food product recalls nonexistent.  

 Farfetched, ask the authors of the Roadmap? Not at all, according to them — They believe that these goals are achievable through the kind of science the USDA will now promote. 

Among other things, the Roadmap calls for a focus on a limted number of “outcome-driven priorities,” cooperation with other agencies and institutions, concentration on both fundamental science and extension, and a “rejuvenation” of the USDA competitive grant system.

All in all, a very interesting read.

Drugs, Medicare, and the older consumer: Economics to the rescue

Okay, let’s have a show of hands. First, how many of you have a relative or someone you care about who is age 65 or older? Thanks.

Now, how many of you tried to help one of these beloved relatives or friends understand and choose a plan under Medicare Part D, the prescription drug benefit for older Americans? Thanks again.

My final question: How many of you who tried to help someone understand their options under Medicare Part D sighed, wept, and eventually wanted to pound your head against the wall in an attempt to lose consciousness? I thought so.

I had this experience myself, trying to help my 80-year old mother-in-law decide which program was best for her. I’m a gerontologist, for heaven’s sake, and I tore out what little hair I have left trying to figure out what her best option was.

 To the rescue comes a highly innovative and effective translational research project, led by Cornell Professor Kosali Simon (Department of Policy Analysis and Management). An economist, Prof. Simon’s desire to apply her expertise to this real-world problem has helped people in New York and across the country make this complex and important decision.

 Medicare Part D was passed in 2003 and is the federal program that subsidizes the costs of prescription drugs for people on Medicare (the federal health insurance program for Americans 65 and over). Some people were basically going broke paying for prescription drugs, and the federal government stepped in.

It sounds good, but here’s the problem: It is extraordinarly difficult to understand the coverage. A beneficiary has to choose among dozens of plans, which include dizzying combinations of deductibles and co-payments, and use different terminology for what they cover.

 

That’s the problem Prof. Simon took on. She had spent her career studying things like the economics of state regulation of private health insurance markets for small employers. But then she did an exercise for one of her classes, and students looked at Medicare Part D. Their work led her to become interested in the topic, and she began to do research on it.

Then she got in touch with psychologist Joe Mikels (Cornell Department of Human Development), who looks at how older people make decisions. Together, they used psychological theory and experimental methods to study older persons’ perceived difficulties of choosing a plan when the number of options available under Medicare Part D is increased in a lab setting. She also studied how seniors may actually benefit from increased breadth of choice in plan offerings using econometric methods and data on plan enrollment.

But here’s where it gets really interesting. Prof. Simon saw that there was practical value in learning how to help older people to understand the differences in medication coverage between plans. She used her data to create guides that can form the basis for choosing the right plans based on examining the coverage of medications, rather than simply going by general marketing materials that were mailed to older people.

Working with Project Manager Robert Harris, an experienced pharmacist, she has expanded the reach of the program in many different ways. Based on the research evidence, they have created a variety of materials such as pocket guides to Medicare Part D, posters, counter cards for pharmacies, customized mailings to residents of nursing homes, and an email newsletter and website with thousands of hits per month. 

All of this is very nicely summarized on her project web site CURxED, which I recommend you visit not just for the information, but as a great example of how complex information can be disseminated on the web.

Prof. Simon summed up the translational research approach very well when she told me: “It is very rewarding to be able to use the same data I collect for my research in ways that are practically useful to actual human beings being served by the program I study.”

Building extension’s public value: We can be more convincing

Those of us who work in the Cooperative Extension system tend to love it. Over the past weeks, I’ve been involved in an interview project with older people who have been involved in extension most of their lives, either as volunteers or as paid employees. Their devotion to extension’s mission shines through every interview. From the inside, the value of what we do seems self-evident.

Then we come up against the harsh reality: Extension is heavily dependent on public funding. Many other constituencies, and in particular elected officials and the general public, need to see the value of what we do. How can we convince those who hold the purse-strings that the work of extension has public value, worth spending government funds on?

I recently came across the work of Laura Kalambokidis, a faculty member in the Department of Applied Economics at the University of Minnesota. One of the pleasures of writing a blog is that you start reading other people’s, and Laura’s brings a fascinating perspective to extension.

In an article in the Journal of Extension, Laura raises the issue of identifying the public value of extension. She lays out the problem facing us succinctly:

The current economic climate has placed significant pressure on the budgets of state and county governments. In turn, those governments have compelled state Cooperative Extension Services to defend their continued receipt of state and county funding. Even when policymakers are persuaded of the efficacy of an Extension program, they have questioned whether the program should be supported with scarce public dollars rather than through user charges.

To address this issue, Laura translates economic theory and research from public sector economics to practical issues of extension. What policymakers need to be convinced of is that extension work has public value – that is, why should the public pay for our services rather than being purchased on the private market? The challenge is to show that extension activities are a public good, one that benefits society as a whole (in addition to benefitting specific program participants). In her words: “Extension staff must also be able to explain why citizens and policymakers who are not direct program participants should value the program.”

In the extension programs I’ve created, I confess that I haven’t done this. When I justify my programs, I point to the good outcomes and satisfaction for program participants. But I don’t really look at the public good – how they have benefits  for the larger community, beyond my participants. For example, I’ve created extension programs to train nursing home staff. But someone could ask: “That’s well and good, but why shouldn’t those programs be paid for by nursing homes as a private good? What’s the public value for what you do?”

Laura’s work suggests that the most effective case can be made for public value when there is market failure – we provide something that isn’t effectively offered privately – and when there are issues of fairness and justice not addressed by private markets. Her article gives a detailed process for identifying public value.

To give one example, extension folks typically believe that they address market failure by providing information. But Laura suggests we consider this carefully, asking questions like:

  • Is there a demonstrable information gap?
  • Can you show that other entities are providing wrong or incomplete information to consumers?
  • Does your information direct consumers (and producers) toward activities that have external benefits?
  • Are you providing information to a population that does not have access to private information sources?

Laura has developed a workshop program where she helps extension associations determine public value of their programs and how to present them as such. More information is available on her web site, which includes a blog.

Why do you think kids make risky decisions? Bet you’re wrong…

On a trip to Dallas last week, I stayed in a large hotel that was playing host to a convention of high school student members of a service organization. A group of boys was roughhousing on a balcony where only a low railing served as a barrier against a 3-floor drop to the lobby, and it looked like a shove in the wrong direction would send someone over the edge. Down swept a small phalanx of chaperones exclaiming what a bunch of idiots the kids were. The young fellows sauntered off, muttering about “over-reacting,” and “always ruining it when we’re having fun.”

To adults, the reason for this behavior seems obvious: Kids are illogical and don’t understand the risks of their behavior. We assume that they do risky things – like use drugs, drive drunk, or have unprotected sex – because they are irrational beings. Like my grandmother would say: “Those kids just don’t have any sense.”

Enter Cornell professor Valerie Reyna to show us that we’re wrong about this, and our misconceptions have implications for how we try to help kids make less risky decisions. A faculty member in Human Development, Prof. Reyna conducts groundbreaking work on judgment and decision making. And she has taken the additional step of turning her basic research into practical programs to help young people.

In the laboratory under controlled conditions, she has conducted many studies of children and adolescents. Following a translational research model, she and her colleagues wanted to first understand the causal mechanisms that generated risky behavior. What she learned in the lab about the psychology of adolescent risk-taking and about how risky decision making changes with age, she found could then be used to modify unhealthy behavior.

The findings are fascinating. It turns out that adolescents don’t take risks because they are irrational and feel invulnerable and immortal. In fact, it’s because they are too logical. Adults can access informed intuition to avoid risk, whereas adolescents count up and weigh risks versus immediate benefits, and often the risk comes out on top. As Prof. Reyna puts it, “We found that teenagers quite rationally weigh benefits and risks. But when they do that, the equation delivers the message to go ahead and do that, because to the teen the benefits outweigh the risks.”

Existing prevention curricula that had been developed tended to have effects that faded over time and were not as large as they could be.  Prof. Reyna translated her research findings into a curriculum based on both theory and empirical findings.  She has created interventions to teach adolescents to think categorically—to make sweeping, automatic gist-based decisions about life: “unprotected sex bad,” “illegal drugs bad.”

After more than 800 teenagers participated in a randomized controlled trial, the investigators found that the curriculum was more broadly effective, and its effects lasted in many cases for long periods of time.

Prof. Reyna’s web page Resources on Risky Decision-Making in Adolescence is a terrific resource. I recommend starting by watching one of her presentations on the topic, conveniently available on the site. An article in the New York Times provides a quick overview. If you are a professional working with adolescents (or if you have one in your family) you’ll find a whole new way of looking at why kids take risks.

Agricultural Extension: The Model for Health Reform?

Atul Gawande is a rare mix: A practicing surgeon who is also a wonderful writer. In thinking about our health care crisis and reform, he started looking for models in American history that have worked to transform systems. In a recent article in the New Yorker entitled “Testing, Testing,” he found his model in a surprising place: Agricultural Extension. His treatment of early success of the extension system makes for fascinating reading (and for those of us working in the system, a nice pat on the back!).

Gawande notes that our health care system lags behind other countries but costs an astronomical amount. He asks: What have we gained by paying more than twice as much for medical care as we did a decade ago? Not much, because the system is fragmented and disorganized. To control costs, the new health reform bill proposes to address many problems through pilot programs: basically, a number of small-scale experiments.

Lest this approach seem absurdly inadequate, Gawande shows that it has worked before – in agriculture. He takes us back to the beginning of the 20th century, when agriculture looked a lot like the current health care system. About 40% of a family’s income was spent on food. Farming tied up half the U. S. workforce. To become an industrial power, policymakers realized that food costs had to be reduced so consumer spending could move to other economic sectors. And more of the workforce needed to move to other industries to build economic growth.

As Gawande sums it up,

The inefficiency of farms meant low crop yields, high prices, limited choice, and uneven quality. The agricultural system was fragmented and disorganized, and ignored evidence showing how things could be done better. Shallow plowing, no crop rotation, inadequate seedbeds, and other habits sustained by lore and tradition resulted in poor production and soil exhaustion. And lack of coordination led to local shortages of many crops and overproduction of others.

Unlike other countries, the U. S. didn’t pursue a top-down, national solution. But government didn’t stay uninvolved either. Gawande tells the intriguing story of Seaman Knapp, the original agricultural extension pioneer. Sent by USDA to Texas as an “agricultural explorer,” he persuaded farmers one-by-one to try scientific methods, using a set of simple innovations (e.g., deeper plowing, application of fertilizer). As other farmers saw the successes (and in particular, that the farmers using extension principles made more money), they bought into the new practices.

Extension agents began to set up demonstration farms in other states, and the program was off and running. In 1914, Congress passed the Smith-Lever Act, which established the Cooperative Extension Service. By 1930 there were more than 750,000 demonstration farms.

The rest is, as they say, history. Agricultural experiment stations were set up in every state that piloted new methods and disseminated them. Data were provided to farmers so they could make better informed planning decisions.

And it worked. Gawande sums up:

What seemed like a hodgepodge eventually cohered into a whole. The government never took over agriculture, but the government didn’t leave it alone, either. It shaped a feedback loop of experiment and learning and encouragement for farmers across the country. The results were beyond what anyone could have imagined.

Gawande profiles Athens, Ohio agricultural extension educator Rory Lewandowski, showing that the system performs the same vital functions it did a hundred years ago. Gawande suggests that the health care system can’t be fixed by one piece of legislation. It will take efforts at the local level that involve “sidestepping the ideological battles, encouraging local change, and following the results.” Impossible, people say? Not really, since it’s been done before – in agricultural extension.

Food Revolution or Evidence-Based Solutions?

I tuned in to Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution the other night. I’m not a lover of reality shows, but, in this case, my curiosity got the best of me. For those of you who haven’t watched TV in the past few months, Food Revolution is a show that documents the antics of celebrity chef, Jamie Oliver, as he rides into the “fattest city in the US” and turns the population (especially the school kids) into healthy eaters. All this in slick, sensationalistic, sixty-minute segments!

As we all know, childhood obesity is taking a terrible toll on our kids. There’s no doubt that a crisis of this magnitude requires us to enact policy changes and programs aimed at addressing the problem. But do programs like Oliver’s Food Revolution really work? How do educators, concerned citizens, and policy makers know which programs will give us the best return on our investment?

John Cawley, a professor in the College of Human Ecology’s Policy Analysis and Management department, has recently published a study that addresses this question. Cawley, an economist, examined recent studies of several programs to reduce obesity, and found that CATCH (Coordinated Approach to Child Health), a multistate program that teaches elementary schoolchildren how to eat well and exercise regularly, is the most cost-effective. On the other hand, the study found that many other popular programs are not as effective and were much more costly than CATCH. Cawley’s study can be found here.

Cawley, who has served on the Institute of Medicine’s committee to prevent childhood obesity, says “It’s a bit of a Wild West, anything-goes environment when it comes to creating anti-obesity programs and policies. With limited resources, it would be counterproductive to rush into programs that are not cost-effective and won’t provide the greatest return on investment.

So, what does any of this have to do with Oliver’s Food Revolution? It suggests that policy makers need to look beyond the glitz when they consider which programs to invest in. It’s important to investigate which programs are “evidence-based” and which are merely entertainment. Food Revolution has not been rigorously evaluated. A preliminary study conducted by the West Virginia University Health Research Center to investigate the program suggests that the program had few positive impacts and a negative impact on meal participation and milk consumption.

In the end, as with most persistent societal challenges, the obesity epidemic is a complex problem best addressed by concerned citizens and policy makers who are committed to finding the best evidence-based solutions. And, unfortunately, it’ll probably take us longer than the sixty-minute segments of a reality TV show to fix the problem.

A changing society: Economic and social trends over the past decade

We all know it’s been a wild decade. But what really happened in areas like immigration, employment, and poverty? An extremely useful report has been issued by the Population Reference Bureau called  U.S. Economic and Social Trends Since 2000. It’s written in easily understandable “layperson’s” language, and succinctly summarizes the last 10 years of economic and social trends in the United States.

The 10 key findings about the last 10 years from the report can be summarized as: 1) There are wide-ranging effects of the recession; 2) some short-term trends are adaptations of recession; 3) fertility rates expected to decline; 4) education levels increase, especially among women; 5) if current gaps in school enrollment and completion rates among blacks and Hispanics persist, the United States may not have the workforce it needs to succeed; 6) job losses and housing market declines have disproportionately affected blacks and Latinos; 7) there is a growing poverty gap between children and the elderly, but children without health insurance dropped sharply; 8) more people are delaying marriage; 9) fewer people are moving; 10) the largest concentration of out-migration occurs in rural communities. (Thanks to ASA Footnotes for this summary.)

The report is a quick read, and contains fascinating boxed inserts on topics like “”Industrial Restructuring,” “Health Insurance Coverage,” and “Food Stamp Participation.” It is very helpful background for extension and outreach folks, as well as anyone else interested in what’s been going on in our country during the past decade.

Skip to toolbar