Issue Category: Environmental Health

California’s Efforts to Prevent and Respond to Childhood Lead Exposure

Background

In the mid-1980s, the California state legislature declared childhood lead exposure the most significant environmental health problem in the state and subsequently established the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch within the state’s Department of Public Health (CDPH).

The program compiles information, identifies target areas, and analyzes data to design and implement ways to reduce childhood lead exposure. The statutes also determine a “standard of care” to evaluate children for lead-exposure risk; mandate reporting by laboratories of all state blood lead test results; and require public health and environmental services for children identified with elevated blood lead levels, including ordering property owners to remove hazardous lead conditions. The state requires the establishment of procedures and the adoption of regulations regarding residential lead paint, and lead-contaminated dust and soil. It also authorizes and administers a lead-based paint prevention training, certification, and accreditation program.

Funding

To help pay for the program, in 1993, California adopted an annual Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Fee, administered jointly by CDPH and the California Board of Equalization (BOE), on manufacturers and other entities involved with the production or sale of lead and lead-based products collected from businesses in the petroleum and architectural coatings industries and from facilities reporting releases of lead into the air. The department deploys a “historical market share attributions” concept to estimate each payer’s long-term contribution to environmental lead contamination and allocate fees. It then deploys collected funds (the fee generated $20.6 million in fiscal 2015) to support healthcare referrals, assessments of homes for hazards, and educational activities.

Banning Lead in Certain Products

California has led U.S. efforts to ban lead from a range of products beginning with a 1986 law, Proposition 65, which requires manufacturers, retailers, and other businesses to notify consumers when they are being exposed to toxic chemicals, including lead. The law has made consumers more aware of toxic chemicals in their environment, and advocates have successfully pressed for more regulations to ban or curtail the use of lead and other toxins in products. In conjunction with these efforts, California passed a number of strict laws to safeguard products and protect its citizens from lead exposure. For example:

  • In 2005, California implemented a lead-in-candy law. The state considers candies with lead levels in excess of 0.1 parts per million (ppm) to be contaminated. The Food and Drug Branch of the California Department of Public Health is required to test samples, notify the manufacturer of the adulteration, and issue a health advisory. The federal Food and Drug Administration subsequently issued national guidance in 2006 recommending that all candy likely to be consumed by children contain no more than 0.1 ppm of lead.
  • In 2006, California enacted the Metal-Containing Jewelry Law. This requires jewelry and components, such as dyes and crystal, that  are sold, shipped, or manufactured for sale in California to meet limits set by the state under a 2004 consent judgment that applied to a number of manufacturers, retailers, and distributors in response to a lawsuit filed by the Attorney General of California and two environmental groups. The law forbids the manufacture, shipping, sale, or offer for retail sale or promotional purposes jewelry in California unless it is made wholly from one or more specified materials. It also mandates lead restrictions for certain specified materials allowed in manufacturing jewelry and establishes provisions for children’s jewelry and that used for body-piercing.
  • California passed additional legislation in 2006, effective in 2010, to reduce the lead content in water distribution products. The law prohibits more than 0.25 percent lead in commercial pipes, fittings, and fixtures.  In 2010, the U.S. Congress amended the Safe Drinking Water Act, including provisions similar to the California standard, and, in 2014, the 0.25 percent standard for lead in pipes, fittings, and fixtures became national.
  • In 2009, California passed the California Lead in Wheel Weights Ban to prevent lead from wheel weights, used to balance tires in vehicles, from entering the environment.  Before the ban, lead wheel weights, which can become dislodged from the wheels and end up on roads where they are abraded into lead dust and debris, were responsible for releasing 500,000 pounds of lead annually onto California roads. Since 2009, six other states, including Washington, Maine, Illinois, New York, Vermont, and Minnesota, have followed California’s lead. Also in 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) started the process to consider banning lead wheel weights in the United States, but it has not taken formal action. The European Union has already banned lead wheel weights, while manufacturers in Japan and Korea stopped installing them in 2005.

In 2010, both California and Washington passed legislation restricting the use of heavy metals including lead in motor vehicle brake pads. In 2014, in California, and 2015 in Washington, brake pads sold in those states could not contain more than 0.1 percent by weight. The legislation also limits the levels of asbestiform fibers, cadmium, chromium, copper, and mercury in the brake friction materials. In January 2015, brake manufacturers signed a memorandum of agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Environmental Council of the States declaring that all brake pads sold in the United States will meet the California/Washington standards. The brake- pad standards were adopted immediately, while standards for copper are being phased in.

  • In 2003, California passed the Toxics in Packaging Prevention Act, which limited harmful substances in packaging and reduced the levels of toxins contaminating soil and ground water near landfills. While the original law exempted lead paint or applied ceramic decoration on glass bottles, a 2008 amendment banned such uses if the lead content exceeds 600 ppm.
  • California passed a law in 2013 that made it the first state to require the use of only lead-free ammunition be used for hunting with a firearm in California. The regulations, which began to phase in in 2015, will be fully implemented in 2019. Lead ammunition for hunting waterfowl was banned nationally in 1991, but the California law extends the ban to hunting for all wildlife. The main purpose of the law is to protect endangered wildlife, including the California condor, from lead exposure. However the legislation should have the added benefit of reducing lead exposure for the families of hunters.

Results

The number of children from 0 to under 21 years who have been identified with blood lead levels at and above 4.5 mcg/dL has been decreasing significantly. In 2013, 1.7 percent of tested children had blood lead levels in this range. In 2007, 6.5 percent tested above 4.5 mcg/dL.

_______________________________________________

In August, 2017, the Health Impact Project, a collaboration between the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) and Pew Charitable Trusts released: Ten Policies to Prevent and Respond to Childhood Lead Exposure. The Trust for America’s Health (TFAH), National Center for Healthy Housing (NCHH), Urban Institute, Altarum Institute, Child Trends and many researchers and partners contributed to the report. TFAH and NCHH worked with Pew, RWJF and local advocates and officials to put together the above case study about lead poisoning and prevention initiatives. 

The case study does not attempt to to capture everything a location is doing on lead, but aims to highlight some of the important work.

Public Health Leaders Make Urgent Joint Call to Protect Prevention and Healthcare

Joint Statement from American Public Health Association, Prevention Institute, Public Health Institute and Trust for America’s Health

June 20, 2017

The fight to protect public health is more important than ever.

The Senate is moving quickly—and secretively—on their version of legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA). While we don’t know the content of the bill, we do know that the House-passed repeal bill—the American Health Care Act—would cause over 23 million people to lose their healthcare, restructure Medicaid, pare down essential benefits like maternity and newborn care, result in the loss of over a million American jobs, and zero out the Prevention and Public Health Fund. As leaders of organizations dedicated to protecting and advancing the public’s health, we call on Congress now to protect federal investments in public health funding, the Prevention and Public Health Fund, and affordable, high-quality healthcare.

Public health is at the very core of keeping our country safe, healthy, resilient, and secure. It works behind the scenes to ensure we have clean water to drink, safe food to eat, and healthy air to breathe. It works to safeguard us from infectious diseases like measles or Ebola by preventing the onset or spread of disease. It builds on time tested strategies to reduce the toll of chronic diseases and injuries. Public health works to redress long-standing inequities in health and safety, by investing in communities of greatest need. Through prevention, evidence-based treatment of substance use, prescription drug monitoring, and improved opioid prescribing, public health can solve the opioid epidemic, which kills ninety-one Americans a day. From opioid overdoses to rising infant and maternal mortality rates, Americans are seeing both the length and quality of their lives decline—and we need more, not fewer, investments in public health to turn the tide.

Repealing the ACA and its investments in public health and prevention dismantles the capacity of public health to do its work. The pain will be felt in every state, every congressional district, and every neighborhood, and those who are most vulnerable will suffer the most. If the Prevention Fund is eliminated, over the next five years states stand to lose over $3 billion they rely on to prevent chronic disease, halt the spread of infections, and invest in the community resources that support health and safety. Repealing the ACA and the Prevention Fund ensures there is no progress to reduce healthcare spending or improve the health of our workforce. Repealing the ACA will result in an America where preventable suffering and death are more widespread, and an America where the poorest and sickest communities fall even farther behind.

A strong public health infrastructure is at the very core of making our country safe, healthy, and secure. We need to act now to protect it.

TFAH Statement: The Climate and Energy Executive Order will be a Calamity for the Nation’s Health

Washington, D.C., March 28, 2017 – The below is a statement from John Auerbach, president and CEO, of Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) on President Trump’s climate and energy executive order.

“The Trump Administration’s executive order rolling back many policies that fight climate change and the serious ramifications that result from a changing environment will harm the nation’s health.

Research has long pointed out the immediate health issues related to pollution—and has shown how, if unchecked, climate change will lead to an increase in natural disasters, reduced water access, the spread of insect-borne infectious diseases and poor air quality.

Today’s executive order impacts the future health of our children and environment and is a step back in efforts to promote resilient, equitable and healthy communities, particularly those most vulnerable and at risk.

We urge this Administration and other partners in both public and private sectors to work collaboratively to deploy new resources and interventions that will help our country mitigate and adapt to this serious public health threat.”

Trust for America’s Health is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to saving lives by protecting the health of every community and working to make disease prevention a national priority.

###

TFAH Statement: Strongly Opposed to the House Obamacare Replacement Bill

Washington, D.C., March 7, 2017 – The below is a statement from John Auerbach, president and CEO, of Trust for America’s Health (TFAH).

“We are strongly opposed to the House Obamacare Replacement bill, which would repeal significant portions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), including the Prevention and Public Health Fund.

Under this plan, millions of people could lose health insurance—a devastating blow to the health of many of our nation’s most vulnerable individuals and families. Without affordable insurance coverage we will see increased levels of preventable illnesses, injuries and deaths.

In addition, eliminating the Prevention Fund would erase 12 percent of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) budget. Of that investment, $625 million directly supports state and local public health efforts to fight preventable diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer.

Losing this funding would wreak havoc on our efforts to reduce chronic disease rates, immunize our children, stop the prescription drug and opioid epidemic and prepare the public health system to prevent infectious disease outbreaks.

We know how to prevent many chronic and infectious illnesses—which make up a significant portion of the $3 trillion the nation spends yearly on healthcare.  If we lose access to health care coverage and to the Prevention Fund, our children, families and communities will suffer and ultimately costs will rise.

The bottom line? This Bill would make untold numbers of the American people less healthy.”

 

###

Trust for America’s Health is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to saving lives by protecting the health of every community and working to make disease prevention a national priority.

TFAH Statement on the Draft House Republican Obamacare Replacement Bill: Our Nation’s Health Will Suffer

Washington, D.C., February 24, 2017 – The below is a statement from John Auerbach, president and CEO, of Trust for America’s Health (TFAH).

“The draft House Republican Obamacare replacement bill—which would eliminate the Prevention and Public Health Fund—would threaten the health of American children, families and communities.

Thanks to the Prevention Fund, hundreds of thousands of Americans benefit from increased access to vaccines and other preventive health services. Quite simply, more people are getting and remaining healthy because of the Prevention Fund.

Yet, the proposed replacement bill would eliminate this important Fund and 12 percent of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) budget along with it.

And, without the Prevention Fund, states will lose substantial sums of money—totaling as much as $3 billion over the next 5 years—which fight growing epidemics and emerging diseases.

Every year, we spend $3 trillion on healthcare, yet millions suffer from chronic diseases and death rates among Blacks and other people of color remain too high. At the same time, death rates among white middle-aged Americans increased for the first time in decades, mainly due to preventable conditions.

Time and again research shows that the vast majority of these conditions—heart disease, diabetes and others—can be prevented by investing in addressing the root causes. Yet, the country has repeatedly failed to do so.

The nation cannot afford to trade away our single best investment in preventing disease, preparing for and responding to infectious disease outbreaks, reducing rates of chronic illness, and saving lives and money.

If this draft becomes law, our nation’s health will suffer—and it will be exponentially harder to fight growing epidemics, like the rise in prescription drug and heroin overdoses.”

 

###

Trust for America’s Health is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to saving lives by protecting the health of every community and working to make disease prevention a national priority.

Survey Finds 73 Percent Support Investments to Improve Health; Obesity, Future Health of Children Top Concerns

Washington, D.C., January 19, 2017 —A new national survey of registered voters has found that nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of Americans support increasing investments to improve the health of communities.  Support spans across party lines (57 percent of Republicans, 87 percent of Democrats and 70 percent of Independents) and regionally across the country (75 percent in the Northeast, 71 percent in the Central U.S., 72 percent in the South, and 75 percent in the West).  Women are the strongest proponents of supporting health improvement efforts (62 percent of Republican women, 87 percent of Democratic women and 80 percent of Independent women).

The survey, released today by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Trust for America’s Health, was conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, in consultation with Bellweather Research, on September 8-9, 2016 of a nationwide sample of 1302 registered voters across the country.

A majority (51 percent) believe that today’s children will be less healthy than previous generations when they reach adulthood.  The groups who hold this belief most strongly include: Republicans (55 percent); rural residents (60 percent); Southerners (57 percent); Independent women (62 percent); and Black women (68 percent).  Most registered voters with children under age 18, however, believe their own children are very healthy (92 percent give an 8-10 rating on a 10-point scale); this is the case for parents of all ideologies, incomes, education levels, and ethnicities.

Additionally, 64 percent believe that the number of health issues facing the country has grown in recent years. Obesity is the top health concern (41 percent), cancer ranked second (33 percent), followed by heart disease and stroke (14 percent) and diabetes and substance misuse (both at 11 percent).

Americans also rate their own health better than the health of the community where they live (66 percent rate their own health as 8-10 (very good) on a 10 point scale, but only 36 percent rank their community’s health as very good).  There are differences based on income, age, education and area of the country on how people rank their health.  For instance:

  • 73 percent of college-educated Whites rank their health as very good compared to 57 percent of Whites without college degrees; and
  • 72 percent of individuals with a household income above $50,000 per year rank their health as very good compared to 59 percent of those with incomes below $50,000.

A majority of American registered voters also strongly support (rating 8-10 out of a 10 point scale) a range of priorities and strategies for improving health, including:

  • 74 percent of people highly support providing enough time — during the school day and afterschool – for kids’ physical education, physical activity or community sports;
  • 74 percent also highly support creating partnerships among farmers, food suppliers and community health groups to bring fresh produce trucks or mobile markets to communities that lack access to grocery stores;
  • 65 percent highly support providing kids with more information on making healthy food choices and being physically active;
  • 63 percent highly support investing more in preventing obesity and chronic diseases like heart disease, diabetes and stroke;
  • 62 percent highly support increasing early childhood health programs, including home visit programs, mobile health screenings and treatment for diseases like asthma;
  • 61 percent highly support investing more in preventing the spread of infectious diseases like the Zika virus, bird flu and hepatitis;
  • 60 percent highly support treating substance use, including addiction to prescription painkillers and heroin, like a disease, not a crime;
  • 60 percent highly support planning for building more parks, walking and biking trails and other recreation areas for people to be physically active in all communities;
  • 60 percent highly support increasing access to safe and affordable housing and routinely testing for things that create health problems in homes, like lead in water and paint, carbon monoxide, and harmful chemicals in the air;
  • 59 percent highly support increasing incentives that encourage business owners to open grocery stores in communities that lack access to healthy food options; and
  • 58 percent highly support building local partnerships across businesses, health systems, schools and community organizations to address specific health problems in communities.

Methodology:  On behalf of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Trust for America’s Health, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, in consultation with Bellwether Research, conducted a survey among 1,320 registered voters nationwide (1,019 weighted). The survey was conducted between September 8th and 19th, 2016. Voters were randomly selected from a list of registered voters and reached on a landline or cell phone depending on the number they designated on their voter registration. Interviews were conducted by live telephone interviewers; 50 percent were reached on a cell phone. Included in the sample were three oversamples: 100 Black voters, 100 Hispanic voters, and 100 White non-college voters. Upon completion of the survey, the results were weighted to bring the three oversamples into line with the racial and ethnic composition of registered voters nationwide. The data was weighted to reflect the total population of registered voters, taking into account regional and demographic characteristics according to known census estimates and voter file projections. The data are subject to a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points.  Full survey and topline results are available upon request.

For more than 40 years the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has worked to improve health and health care. We are striving to build a national Culture of Health that will enable all to live longer, healthier lives now and for generations to come. For more information, visit www.rwjf.org. Follow the Foundation on Twitter atwww.rwjf.org/twitter or on Facebook at www.rwjf.org/facebook. 

###

Trust for America’s Health is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to saving lives by protecting the health of every community and working to make disease prevention a national priority.

Majority of States Score 6 or Lower Out of 10 Indicators in Report on Health Emergency Preparedness

Washington, D.C., December 20, 2016 – In Ready or Not? Protecting the Public from Diseases, Disasters and Bioterrorism, 26 states and Washington, D.C. scored a six or lower on 10 key indicators of public health preparedness.

The report, issued by the Trust for America’s Health (TFAH), found that the nation is often caught off guard when a new threat arises, such a Zika or the Ebola outbreak or bioterrorist threat, which then requires diverting attention and resources away from other priorities.

In the report, Alaska and Idaho scored lowest at 3 out of 10, and Massachusetts scored the highest at 10 out of 10, with North Carolina and Washington State scoring 9’s.

“Health emergencies can quickly disrupt, derail and divert resources from other ongoing priorities and efforts from across the government,” said Rich Hamburg, interim president and CEO, TFAH.  “Many areas of progress that were made after 9/11 and the anthrax attacks to improve health security have been undercut.  We aren’t adequately maintaining a strong and steady defense, leaving us unnecessarily vulnerable when new threats arise.”

Ready or Not? examines the nation’s ability to respond to public health emergencies, tracks progress and vulnerabilities, and includes a review of state and federal public health preparedness policies.  Some key findings include:

  • 26 states increased or maintained funding for public health from Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-2015 to FY 2015-2016.
  • Just 10 states vaccinated at least half of their population (ages 6 months and older) against the seasonal flu during the 2015-2016 flu season (from July 2015 to May 2016).
  • 45 states and Washington, D.C. increased the speed of DNA fingerprinting using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) testing for all reported cases of Shiga toxin-producing E. coli O157, a measure of a state’s ability to detect foodborne outbreaks.
  • 10 states have a formal access program or a program in progress for getting private sector healthcare staff and supplies into restricted areas during a disaster.
  • 30 states and Washington, D.C. met or exceeded the overall national average score (6.7) of the National Health Security Preparedness Index™ (as of 2016).
  • 32 states and Washington, D.C. received a grade of C or above in States at Risk: America’s Preparedness Report Card, a national assessment of state-level preparedness for climate change-related threats – which have an impact on human health.

In addition, the report examined trends in public health preparedness over the last 15 years, finding successes and ongoing concerns.

  • One-third of funds for health security and half of funds for healthcare system preparedness have been cut:  Health emergency preparedness funding for states has been cut from $940 million in fiscal year (FY) 2002 to $660 million in FY 2016; and healthcare system preparedness funding for states has been cut by more than half since FY 2005 – down to $255 million.
  • Some major areas of accomplishment:  Improved emergency operations, communication and coordination; support for the Strategic National Stockpile and the ability to distribute medicines and vaccines during crises; major upgrades in public health labs and foodborne illness detection capabilities; and improvements in legal and liability protections during emergencies.
  • Some major ongoing gaps: Lack of a coordinated, interoperable, near real-time biosurveillance system; insufficient support for research and development of new medicines, vaccines and medical equipment to keep pace with modern threats; gaps in the ability of the healthcare system to care for a mass influx of patients during a major outbreak or attack; and cuts to the public health workforce across states.

The Ready or Not? report provides a series of recommendations that address many of the major gaps in emergency health preparedness, including:

  • Requiring strong, consistent baseline public health Foundational Capabilities in regions, states and communities—so that everyone is protected.
  • Ensuring stable, sufficient health emergency preparedness funding to maintain a standing set of foundational capabilities alongside a complementary Public Health Emergency Fund which would provide immediate surge funding during an emergency.
  • Improving federal leadership before, during and after disasters – including at the White House level.
  • Recruiting and training a next generation public health workforce with expert scientific abilities to harness and use technological advances along with critical thinking and management skills to serve as the Chief Health Strategist for a community.
  • Reconsidering health system preparedness for new threats and mass outbreaks by developing stronger coalitions and partnerships among providers, hospitals, insurance providers, pharmaceutical and health equipment businesses, emergency management, and public health agencies.
  • Prioritizing efforts to address one of the most serious threats to human health by expanding efforts to stop Superbugs and antibiotic resistance.
  • Improving rates of vaccinations for children and adults – which are one of the most effective public health tools against many infectious diseases.

Ready or Not? was released annually from 2003-2012, and more recently, TFAH has released Outbreaks: Protecting Americans from Infectious Diseases, from 2013-2015. The report was supported by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF).

Score Summary: 

A full list of all of the indicators and scores and the full report are available on TFAH’s website.  For the state-by-state scoring, states received one point for achieving an indicator or zero points if they did not achieve the indicator.  Zero is the lowest possible overall score, 10 is the highest.  The data for the indicators are from publicly available sources or were provided from public officials.

10 out of 10: Massachusetts

9 out of 10: North Carolina and Washington

8 out of 10: California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, Tennessee and Virginia

7 out of 10: Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah and Wisconsin

6 out of 10: Arizona, Arkansas, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Vermont

5 out of 10: Alabama, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota and West Virginia

4 out of 10: Nevada and Wyoming

3 out of 10: Alaska and Idaho

 

###

 Trust for America’s Health is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to saving lives by protecting the health of every community and working to make disease prevention a national priority.