Most Obese States Drop Medicaid Expansion

October 17th, 2012 No comments »

If you follow developments in obesity at all, you are familiar with the CDC maps showing the increases in obesity across the nation. Likewise, it is clear from these maps, the obesity is a major problem in the South.

Unfortunately, and tragically for many obese poor persons, the governors of Florida, Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina and Texas have now been joined by the governor of Mississippi in rejecting the expansion of Medicaid in their states. The expansion is authorized under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). St.LouisPostDispatch_Mississippi Decides Medicaid Dollars not Worth Cost

Under the Affordable Care Act, the federal government will pay 100% of the cost of expanding Medicaid from 2014 to 2016. Between 2017 and 2020, the federal share drops to 90% and the states’ contribution gradually rises. The Kaiser Family Foundation projected that Mississippi would receive $23 dollars from Washington for every $1 from the state.

While state budgets are clearly under pressure, many see politics at work as all of the Governors in these states are Republicans and are opposed to Obamacare. Regardless, Mississippi has the highest rate of childhood obesity in the nation with nearly 40% of children up to age 17 meeting the obesity criteria. In all of these states, the lower income groups, who would be covered by the expansion of Medicaid, have major health problems. Refusing to participate in the Medicaid expansion only perpetuates these issues.

 

Obesity and the 2012 Elections

October 1st, 2012 No comments »

At this point the election is some 36 days away. How would different outcomes in the races for President, and control of the Senate and House of Representatives affect health care policies relating to prevention or treatment of obesity? What are the issues? What are the candidates saying about them? What policies might or might not change?

THE ISSUES

One of the major issues in the campaign has been the Affordable Care Act (ACA) with Republicans vowing to repeal and/or replace it and Democrats pledging to defend it.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is also referred to as “Obamacare.” While Republicans initiated the term ‘Obamacare’ as a derisive term, Democrats, including President Obama, have become more comfortable using it.

This may be because their overall favorability rating in the polls has gone from very unfavorable to 50% favorable. While the reasons for the shift are not clear, it is likely that it is at least in part due to some of the benefits kicking in, such as no pre-existing conditions exclusions for children, coverage of children on their parents plan up to age 26, and state insurance programs for those unable to acquire individual insurance coverage, strengthening of consumer’s hands in appealing insurance denials, covering USPSTF preventive services without charge in new (i.e. not grandfathered) health plans, rebates to consumers of $1.1 billion this spring from health insurers with excessive administrative costs.

For many months, the ACA has been under legal attack as unconstitutional, especially the requirement that all individuals purchase health insurance. However, in June, 2012 the Supreme Court upheld the law’s constitutionality in this respect.

The ACA has many provisions of importance to persons with obesity. (See http://www.downeyobesityreport.com/category/policy/health-care-reform-policy/page/2/)

In addition to the above mentioned policies, the biggest benefit to persons with obesity is being able to access insurance without their weight being considered a pre-existing condition. This will come into fruition in 2014 when the state health exchanges are operational but state insurance programs are available now until the exchanges are operational. The ACA also established a Prevention Wellness Fund and a National Prevention Council which developed a national prevention strategy. The strategy has been developed and grants have been issued to a number of states.

The ACA did not change Medicare coverage of bariatric surgery; nor did it eliminate the exclusion of drugs for weight loss in Part D. The decision by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to expand Medicare benefits to include intensive behavioral counseling for obesity in adults, as recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force, was authorized by prior Congressional statute, not the ACA. Therefore, were the ACA to be repealed, it would not affect this coverage.

Medicaid was greatly expanded by the ACA but the Supreme Court decision in NFIB v. Sebelius has thrown this aspect into some doubt. Medicaid coverage of bariatric surgery, anti-obesity medication and counseling vary widely (See http://www.stopobesityalliance.org/research-and-policy/research-center/gw-research/)

Other provisions of the bill expanded comparative effectiveness research, required employers with over 50 employees to provide private areas for breastfeeding newborns and restaurant chains with 20 or more outlets are required to post calorie information on the menu boards. A controversial provision, offered by Republicans, provides added ‘incentives’ for employer wellness programs in terms of having employees pay more of their health insurance premium costs if they not reach certain specific health metrics, such as BMI. More and more employers have expanded using these ‘incentives’.

The Democrats have no reluctance to pointing to Republican nominee Governor Mitt Romney’s own legislation in Massachusetts as the grandfather of Obamacare, particularly the individual mandate to purchase insurance.

Other policies can affect persons with obesity, outside of the ACA. Balancing the federal budget, reducing the federal debt are also issues in the campaign and can affect funding for the National Institutes of Health and other federal research programs. “Entitlement reform” referring to changes in the Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security programs can also affect both participation in those programs and how benefits of those programs are structured.

The Presidential Race

Recently, the New England Journal of Medicine published editorials by Governor Romney and President Obama on their health care proposals, giving us the most recent and authoritative statements for each camp.

President Obama’s editorial is an strong defense of the ACA. He writes, “Today, 105 million people have seen a lifetime cap on their coverage lifted, so your patients no longer face the tragedy of approaching a lifetime limit in the middle of a round of chemotherapy or an episode in the ICU. Most of your patients can now get preventive care without paying deductibles and copays, care that you know saves lives, from early colon-and breast cancer screenings to cardiovascular tests and flu shots. Because of these new limits on insurance overhead costs, 13 million Americans got more than $1 billion in rebates – and by 2019, economists believe, family premiums will be about $2,000 less.” He goes on to cite saving seniors an average $600 by closing the ‘donut hole’ in Medicare drug coverage, adding 3 million young adults under age 26 to their parent’s insurance coverage, providing that up to 17 million children with preexisting conditions are no longer at risk of being denied coverage. He looks forward to 2014 when 30 million currently uninsured Americans will have health insurance which will stay with them, regardless of employment status. He promises to work on ACA implementation, fix the Medicare physician payment problem and supports medical malpractice reforms without arbitrary “caps”, continue support for the life-sciences research (read NIH) and ensure that the regulatory system (read FDA) helps bring new tools to patients and health care professionals. Finally, he criticizes the Republican ticket for proposing a budget which would eliminate 1,600 NIH grants, make Medicaid into a block grant and cut funding by 1/3 and turn Medicare into a voucher program. NEJM: Perscpective_President Obama

Governor Romney’s editorial criticizes Obamacare and pledges to repeal it and replace it with “not another massive federal bill that purports to solve all our problems from Washington, but with common- sense, patient-centered reforms suited to the challenges we face.”  Under his plan, “families will have the option of keeping their employer-sponsored coverage, but they will also be empowered to enjoy the greater choice, portability, and security of purchasing their own insurance plans.” He argues that this will increase competition, improve quality and lower costs. He would eliminate mandates (presumably state benefit mandates), facilitate purchasing pools and open up an interstate market. Regulation (presumably federal) would prevent insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions “who maintain continuous coverage.” He pledges better approval of innovations by the FDA and malpractice reforms. He would replace the current Medicare program with one like how Members of Congress choose from among plans, “including today’s traditional fee-for-service option.” The government will provide premium support…more for low income seniors and less for well off seniors…in purchasing their plans. He notes that insurers have said that they would keep coverage for children up to age 26 on their parent’s plans, regardless of Obamacare because they are responding to the market. Finally, he promises to transform Medicaid into a block grant. NEJM: Perspective_ Governor Romney

Three items of interest. First, President Obama nowhere mentions the “public option” which was a major issue within his own party during the legislative process. That idea is clearly off the table. In fact, the Democratic party platform did not mention it, nor does it appear that any Democratic Members of Congress running for re-election who supported the idea are campaigning on it.  Second, Governor Romney did not repeat his promise, made on his website, that on “day one” he would grant waivers from the Obamacare to all fifty states. MittRomney.com:Issues/health care. There is no way of knowing if this omission indicates a change in his position but he may have learned that the ACA does not provide for waivers for states from its mandates. A couple of specific provisions have allowance for waivers. But the key section, regarding the individual mandate, only allows waivers where states offer innovative plans for its citizens which are at least as comprehensive and affordable as the ACA and cover at least as many residents, i.e. Vermont’s single-payer system. Waiver applications from the states have to be reviewed by Department of Health and Human Services and the Internal Revenue Service. Waivers are limited to 5 years but can be renewed. Public hearings are required as well as a 10-year budget plan and periodic evaluation of the program. In any event, waivers are not available until 2017, the year after the next President’s four year term. Of course, Congress could pass legislation to provide waivers by the President on his own volition but if Congress were to do that, why not just repeal the statute altogether? Third, both candidates, but especially President Obama are inexplicitly silent on Medicaid and the Supreme Court’s opinion that Medicaid expansion be “optional.” Medicaid has become even more important in this recession as the health care safety net for millions of Americans who have lost private coverage. Tim Jost Health Blog: behind-the-uninsured-numbers-a-diminishing-sense-of-urgency/ In 2013, the provision of Obamacare which gives a state an additional 1% of the federal share of Medicaid spending in that state if they cover USPSTF recommendations, such as intensive behavioral counseling for adult obesity, is scheduled to go into effect. There is no indication if or how the Supreme Court opinion might affect this provision’s implementation.

(For a detailed non-partisan analysis of the health plans of President Obama and Governor Romney see this report just issued by the Commonwealth Fund: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Fund-Reports/2012/Oct/Health-Care-in-the-2012-Presidential-Election.aspx?page=all.

This leads us to the variations in the Congressional elections.

CONGRESS

The Presidents proposes but the Congress disposes is an axiom of American government. Obviously, whatever a President may want, it is up to Congress to decide what he gets to sign into law or veto. So, what are the possible President-Congress combinations, and how would they affect the above policies?

  1. President Obama, Democratic Senate, Republican House

Today, this appears the most likely outcome, identical to the past four years. However, strategies might change. The Senate would block any House legislation to repeal Obamacare. However, it is unclear if the Republican strategy would change or not. For the past four years, the Republican strategy has been to limit President Obama to one term by denying him major legislative accomplishments. With an Obama victory, this strategy no longer has meaning. Depending on the extent of an Obama victory, Republicans may decide not to oppose virtually everything. Winning counts and Republicans may decide to become somewhat more cooperative. The Democrats are likely to be comfortable with staying with the implementation of the ACA and only making legislative changes of narrow scope, much like the changes to Medicare and Medicaid which Congress makes on a pretty regular basis.

2. President Obama, Democratic Senate, Democratic House

It is possible, that with only a change of 25 seats needed, that Democrats could take back control of the House of Representatives. While some very liberal members might bring up the ‘public option,’ in my opinion the White House and Congressional leaders will have little stomach for another health care fight when other pending issues have gone unattended, like immigration reform and the federal deficit. The one factor that can change this is the Supreme Court’s limitation on Medicaid expansion. Making Medicaid expansion optional may mean than more people will remain uninsured than expected. If the numbers bear this out, the Dems may be forced to go back to the drawing board. At this point and given the Supreme Court decision, the public option could be back on the table.  This complete Democratic control is probably the only scenario in which Medicare Part D would be re-opened, providing an opportunity to change the statutory language prohibiting payment for drugs causing weight loss.

3.  President Obama, Republican Senate, Republican House

This is a nightmare scenario for the White House. While President Obama has said he would veto a repeal of the ACA this would be very problematic especially if repeal were included in must-do legislation. Remember Obama agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts which he opposed because he needed Senate votes to approve a treaty extension with Russia and continuation of unemployment benefits. All kinds of legislative games could be played with repeal of the ACA.

4.  President Obama, Republican Senate, Democratic House

It is highly unlikely that both the Senate and House would flip party control but all things are possible. In this scenario, more gridlock is foreseeable.

5.  President Romney, Democratic Senate, Republican House

Gridlock. A Democratic Senate could kill most bills coming from a Republican House. Romney needs the Senate to confirm his Cabinet and other personnel, so Senate Democrats would have a lot of leverage. Democrats would not be expected to announce that they will act to make a President Romney a one-term President, but they will probably act that way. President Romney would have the power to re-open many of the regulations already issued to implement the ACA. The law also provides for a great deal of interpretation by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in its implementation which a Romney Administration could affect. Probably the provision of most importance and undefined at this point is the definition of “essential health benefits” which would be included in plans offered in the federal and state health exchanges. Here, a Romney Administration would have significant latitude.

6.  President Romney, Republican Senate, Democratic House

This is probably the least likely scenario. While Democrats would control one House of Congress, the greater constitutional authority in the Senate would give an edge to enactment of the Republican agenda. However, regarding the ACA, that agenda may be a little murky. In elections in 2014 and then in 2016, when President Romney would run for re-election, 37 Republican Senate seats will also be on the ballot compared to 32 for the Democrats. 2016 will have one of the most un-balanced slates facing the Republicans in some time with 24 Republican seats and only 12 Democratic seats up. It is likely that a number of Republican Senators would not want to see their opponents using repeal of popular ACA provisions against them. So, rather than outright repeal, they might want a more ‘nuanced’ approach which doesn’t leave them politically exposed. Just what that would look like is very unclear. Also, there are a number of provisions of the ACA favored by Republicans including the employer wellness program incentives and the development of Affordable Care Organizations or ACOs.

As long as the Republicans controlled one house of Congress, they could use the “reconciliation” process to avoid a Senate filibuster and enact legislation by majority vote. (Democrats used this at the end of the legislative process to make key changes in the ACA.) However, reconciliation is not for every issue. Under what is known as the “Byrd Rule” a provision excluded from a reconciliation bill if extraneous, i.e., it does not produce a change in federal outlays or revenues; or it produces changes in outlays or revenues that are merely incidental to non-budget components of the provision; or would increase the deficit. So a reconciliation bill could address equalizing the tax treatment of individual and employer purchased health insurance; Medicaid expansion; premium tax credits or the individual mandate. But reconciliation could not be used for changing the insurance reforms, banning use of health status on underwriting or the ban on pre-existing conditions. See Tim Jost Health Blog: dismantling-the-affordable-care-act-what-could-a-president-romney-and-hill-republicans-do/ On the other hand, were a reconciliation bill to repeal the Medicare provisions of the ACA, the federal deficit would actually increase, and so run afoul of the Byrd Rule. (Widely misunderstood, the Byrd Rule is not a Senate Rule but  a federal statute.)

7.   President Romney, Republican Senate, Republican House

While this sounds like a dream scenario for the Republicans, it is actually fraught with danger. The Republican base will expect the party to deliver on its promises on the ACA, Medicare and Medicaid and on the deficit. How the public will react to seeing the Republican positions move from rhetoric to reality will be fodder for pundits and policy-makers for years. Will the public be comfortable with governmental programs, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, being largely turned over to the private insurance market? Certainly, Republican control of Congress and the White House will allow for the de-funding of ACA implementation, including areas like comparative-effectiveness research and the fund for prevention programs.

8.  President Romney, Democratic Senate, Democratic House

This is Romney’s nightmare scenario. Democrats would be expected to pass legislation almost begging for a veto. Romney would have to demonstrate great skill to show leadership on the national political agenda. Given his signature health care legislation as Governor of Massachusetts, I would not expect a President Romney to pick a fight with a Democratic Congress over repeal of Obamacare.

In the meantime, we should not lose sight that many businesses, health care providers, insurers and others are anticipating that current law, i.e. the ACA, will continue. They are making changes to their businesses accordingly. For example, of the 29 state governments under Republican control, only seven are not developing state health care exchanges, while 22 are.

States setting up their own exchanges are submitting their list of ‘essential health benefits.’ We know that Colorado is including the preventive recommendations of the USPSTF, evidently including the recommendation for intensive behavioral counseling for adult obesity while Oregon has decided not to include bariatric surgery.

Litigation over provisions of the ACA will continue. However, it is unlikely that any future challenge will change the Supreme Court’s interpretation of its constitutionality. Implementation may also present problems in satisfying the law’s requirements. Specific provisions may change and will need to be addressed in remedial legislation.

Looking at specific obesity treatment modalities, for bariatric surgery, it seems as if current Medicare coverage will stand. Indications are not good that it will be part of many states’ essential benefit packages under the ACA. Medicaid coverage is unlikely to change because of the election.

Coverage of drugs to  treat obesity has gradually improved over the past few years. It may be that the newly approved drugs by the Food and Drug Administration will spur additional private sector coverage. However, adding such drugs to Medicare Part D or Medicaid Plans remains a long shot. I have not seen what states may do with drug coverage under essential health benefits for the state health exchanges but I would expect most states will go with what they cover in the Medicaid program.

The recent coverage of intensive behavioral counseling for adults with obesity would continue even if the ACA were repealed. However, the ACA would bring intensive counseling in other programs, such as Medicaid and non-grandfathered health plans. So repeal of the ACA would delay or deny expansion of intensive counseling.

So this election and the subsequent make-up of Congress will have a major impact on obesity.

 

Time for a reappraisal

September 14th, 2012 No comments »

I have a blog on the STOP Obesity Alliance website on the latest research on the effectiveness of public policy interventions to prevent obesity.

See:  http://www.stopobesityalliance.org/blog/time-for-a-reappraisal-of-public-policy-interventions-on-obesity

 

 

State Level Obesity Rates Show Increases

August 15th, 2012 No comments »

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has released new state level prevalence data on adult obesity. By my count, only 11 states have obesity rates below 25%. Not one state has reached Healthy People objective for adult obesity. CDC: State Adult Obesity Rates.

Texas Grapples with Costs of Bariatric Surgery

June 24th, 2012 No comments »

The New York Times reports on the issue of Texas, which has one of the highest rates of obesity in the country, grappling with the costs of bariatric surgery in Medicare and Medicaid. NYT:Spending for Weigh Loss Surgery Increases in Texas

No doubt this scenario will be played out in many states in the coming years. I’ve always said, “Obesity is too expensive to treat and it is too expensive not to treat.” This article bears this out. The tipping point for me is that at least with treating, we are reducing suffering for some humans. Predictably, at the end of the article a professor is cited as saying that the state could reach many more people with less expensive lifestyle interventions and improve their health enough to save far more dollars than bariatric surgeries do. This would be true if any lifestyle intervention was shown to achieve bariatric surgery’s long term, significant weight loss, with a reduction in co-morbidities, such as type 2 diabetes. But the professor’s statement is still, after millions of dollars of research on lifestyle changes, only a hypothesis, yet to be established.

 

USAToday Coverage of IOM Recommendations

May 8th, 2012 1 comment »

Multiple strategies needed to fight obesity, study suggests

By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY

Updated 1h 12m ago

WASHINGTON – Taming the obesity epidemic in this country needs an all-hands-on-deck strategy so that schools provide students 60 minutes of physical activity daily, fast-food restaurants offer healthier fare for kids, and communities build recreational spaces that encourage physical activity, says a new report out Tuesday. 

  • A new report recommends kids have 60 minutes of active time per day.By Reed Saxon, APA new report recommends kids have 60 minutes of active time per day.

By Reed Saxon, AP

A new report recommends kids have 60 minutes of active time per day.

Sponsored Links

It’s going to take “bold actions” like these and a full-scale effort across all segments of society to reduce the obesity epidemic, says the report from experts convened by theInstitute of Medicine, which provides independent advice on health issues to policy makers, foundations and others.

The goals and some of the strategies were presented here at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s “Weight of the Nation” meeting, where experts are discussing ideas for the prevention and control of obesity.

Currently, two-thirds of adults and a third of children in the USA are overweight or obese, government statistics show. Another study out Monday predicted that as many as 42% of adults may be obese, roughly 30 or more pounds over a healthy weight, by 2030 if actions aren’t taken to reverse the trend.

Extra weight takes a huge toll on health increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, stroke, many types of cancer, sleep apnea and other debilitating and chronic illnesses, and it costs billions of dollars in extra medical expenditures.

The Institute of Medicine committee reviewed more than 800 obesity prevention recommendations to pinpoint the most effective ones.

The report says there is no one answer to this problem, but it’s going to require bringing all the pieces together — the schools, the workplace, health care providers, says Dan Glickman, chairman of the institute committee and former secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. “There are no magic bullets in here, but this report puts it all together.”

The illnesses and costs associated with obesity are spiraling out of control, he says. “If we don’t address this comprehensively, it will basically take us down as a society.”

M. R. C. Greenwood, vice chairwoman of the committee and president of the University of Hawaiisystem, says, “Many people will probably say ‘what’s new’ and what’s new is the clear statement that we must begin to attack this problem collectively on all fronts. It’s a massive problem unlike anything we have ever tackled before.”

Here are the five goals and a some strategies suggested for achieving them:

Make it easier for people to work physical activity into their daily lives. For instance, people need to have safe places to be active including trails, parks, playgrounds and community recreation centers.

Create an environment where healthy food and beverage options are the routine, easy choice.

Fast-food and chain restaurants could revise menus to make sure at least half of their kids’ meals comply with government’s dietary guidelines for moderately active 4- to 8-year-olds, and that those meals are moderately priced.

Businesses, governments and others should adopt policies to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages including making clean water available in public places, work sites and recreation areas.

Improve messages about physical activity and nutrition.

The food, beverage, restaurant and media industries should take voluntary action to adopt nutritionally based standards for marketing aimed at children and adolescents, ages 2-17. If those standards aren’t adopted within two years by the majority of companies, then local, state and federal policymakers should consider setting mandatory nutritional standards for marketing to this age group.

Expand the role of health care providers, insurers and employers in obesity prevention.

Employers should provide access to healthy foods at work and offer opportunities for physical activity as part of their wellness/health promotion programs.

All health care providers should adopt standards of practice for preventing, screening, diagnosing and treating people who are overweight or obese.

Make schools a national focal point for obesity prevention.

Students should have nutrition education throughout their school years, and kids in kindergarten through 12th grade should have the chance to engage in a total of 60 minutes of physical activity each school day. This should include participation in quality physical education.

“There’s so much to do, and the country is still doing so little,” says Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based consumer group. “It seems heartless that we’re abandoning two-thirds of the American population to obesity-related diseases.”

There are lots of ways for students to get an hour of physical activity during the school day including recess, PE, walking and biking to school, classroom activities and after-school sports, Wootan says. “Kids need a chance to run around in order to sit still and learn in the classroom.”

When it comes to food marketing to kids, “companies claim to be taking meaningful action, but still the overwhelming majority of food ads aimed at kids are for unhealthy foods,” she says.

“What industry says is healthy to market to kids is not what most parents and health professionals think is healthy.”

Not everyone is convinced that the actions outlined in the report will make a dent in the obesity problem. “The literature in evaluating interventions like these shows weak effectiveness at best,” says Morgan Downey, editor and publisher of the downeyobesityreport.com. “So rather than evaluate the strategies’ effectiveness, they (the committee members) are just shouting them even louder.”

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ’s. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted 11h 11m ago | Updated 1h 12m ago

 

CDC Reports Drop in New York City Childhood Obesity Rates

December 15th, 2011 No comments »

The CDC reports an actual drop in the rates of childhood obesity in New York City  Obesity in K–8 Students — New York City, 2006–07 to 2010–11 School Years and Mayor Bloomberg offers an explanation. http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/html/2011b/pr440-11.html

Is California’s Childhood Obesity Picture Really Improving?

November 19th, 2011 No comments »

The UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and the California Center for Public Health Advocacy recently released a report, “A Patchwork of Progress, Changes in Overweight and Obesity Among California 5th, 7th, and 9th Grades, 2005-2010. California making headway in battle against childhood obesity but successes are uneven | UCLA Center for Health Policy Research The lead was that the state prevalence rate had dropped between 2005 and 2010 by 1.1%. This was widely picked up by the media and indicating that California had turned the corner on childhood obesity. Childhood obesity rates level off in California and L.A. County – latimes.com

The report and some of the media report did indicate wide variations. 31 of 58 counties showed an increase in the rates of obesity and five had rates at least 10% higher in 2010 than in 2005. 26 counties experienced a decrease in rates of obesity with 7 have rates at least 10% lower in 2010 than in 2005.

So, does this look like progress? Consider this: the number of children who are overweight or obesity actually increased from 2005 to 2010. Reason: school enrollment increased from 1,137,122 in 2005 to 1,214,061 in 2010. So, while the prevalence figured may have dropped during this 5 year period, the number of children considered overweight or obesity increased by 16, 729 or 3.7%.

A study by this group last year indicated that income disparities in obesity prevalence was significantly increasing, principally affecting low income male adolescents. Income disparities in obesity trends amon… [Am J Public Health. 2010] – PubMed – NCBI