State Category: Rhode Island

U.S. Obesity Rates at Historic Highs – Nine States Reach Adult Obesity Rates of 35 Percent or More

 Report Calls for Sugary Drink Taxes, Expanded SNAP and WIC Nutrition Support Programs and a built environment that encourages physical activity to Help Address Health Crisis

(Washington, DC – September 12, 2019) – Nine U.S. states had adult obesity rates above 35 percent in 2018, up from seven states at that level in 2017, an historic level of obesity in the U.S., according to the 16th annual State of Obesity: Better Policies for a Healthier America report released today by the Trust for America’s Health (TFAH).

The report based in part on newly released data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), and analysis by TFAH, provides an annual snapshot of obesity rates nationwide.  The State of Obesity series and this report were made possible by funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Obesity has serious health consequences including increased risk for type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, stroke and many types of cancers. Obesity is estimated to increase national healthcare spending by $149 billion annually (about half of which is paid for by Medicare and Medicaid) and being overweight or obese is the most common reason young adults are ineligible for military service.

Obesity rates vary considerably between states with Mississippi and West Virginia having the highest level of adult obesity in the nation at 39.5 percent and Colorado having the lowest rate at 23.0 percent.

For the first time, adult obesity rates were above 35 percent in nine states in 2018: Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota and West Virginia.

As recently as 2012, no state had an adult obesity rate over 35 percent and within the last five years (2013 and 2018) 33 states had statistically significant increases in their rates of adult obesity.

“These latest data shout that our national obesity crisis is getting worse,” said John Auerbach, President and CEO of Trust for America’s Health. “They tell us that almost 50 years into the upward curve of obesity rates we haven’t yet found the right mix of programs to stop the epidemic.   Isolated programs and calls for life-style changes aren’t enough.  Instead, our report highlights the fundamental changes that are needed in the social and economic conditions that make it challenging for people to eat healthy foods and get sufficient exercise.”


Differential Impact Amongst Minority Populations

The report highlights that obesity levels are closely tied to social and economic conditions and that individuals with lower incomes are more at risk. People of color, who are more likely to live in neighborhoods with few options for healthy foods and physical activity, and, are the target of widespread marketing of unhealthy foods, are at elevated risk.

As of 2015-2016, the latest available data, nearly half of Latino (47 percent) and Black adults (46.8) had obesity while adult obesity rates among White and Asian adults were 37.9 percent and 12.7 percent respectively.  Incidence of childhood obesity was highest amongst Latino children at 25.8 percent while 22 percent of Black children had obesity, 14 percent of White children had obesity and 11 percent of Asian children had obesity.


What Could Work?

While the obesity rates are alarming, there are new data offering the promise of policies that combat the epidemic, namely promoting healthier food for children through revamped WIC food packages and fostering behavior change through taxes on sugary drinks.

  • Obesity rates for children enrolled in WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children) continue to decline, from 15.9 percent in 2010 to 13.9 percent in 2016. In 2009, the USDA updated WIC food packages to more closely meet recommended national dietary guidelines including the addition of more fruits, vegetables and whole grains and reduced fat levels in milk and infant formula. A Los Angeles County study published this year found that 4-year-olds who had received the revised WIC food package since birth had reduced risk for obesity.
  • A number of U.S. cities and the Navajo Nation have passed local taxes on sugary drinks that are showing promise as a means to change consumers’ beverage habits. Studies of a 1-cent per ounce tax in Berkeley, California and a 1.5 cent per ounce tax in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania found that the consumption of sugary drinks decreased significantly after the tax was imposed.

“Policies such as these are proving effective in changing behavior. But, no single solution – however promising – is sufficient.  Obesity is a complex problem and will need multi-sector, multi-factor solutions,” said TFAH’s Auerbach.

“Creating the conditions that allow people to more easily make healthy choices is central to preventing obesity, as is prioritizing investment in those communities most affected by the crisis,” Auerbach said.


Recommendations for Policy Action

The report includes 31 recommendations for policy action by federal, state and local government, across several sectors, designed to improve access to nutritious foods and provide safe opportunities for physical activity, while minimizing harmful marketing and advertising tactics.

Among the report’s recommendations for policies to address the obesity crisis are:

  • Expand the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) to age 6 for children and for two years postpartum for mothers and fully fund the WIC breastfeeding Peer Counseling Program.
  • Increase the price of sugary drinks through excise taxes and use the revenue to address health and socioeconomic disparities.
  • Ensure that CDC has enough funding to grant every state appropriate funding to implement evidence-based obesity prevention strategies (currently, CDC only has enough funding to work with 16 states).
  • Make it more difficult to market unhealthy food to children by ending federal tax loopholes and business costs deductions related to the advertising of such foods to young audiences.
  • Fully fund the Student Support and Academic Enrichment program and other federal programs that support student physical education.
  • Encourage safe physical activity by funding Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS), Complete Streets, Vision Zero and other pedestrian safety initiatives through federal transportation and infrastructure funding.
  • Ensure that anti-hunger and nutrition-assistance programs, like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), WIC, and others follow the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and make access to nutritious food a core program tenet.
  • Strengthen and expand school nutrition programs beyond federal standards to include universal meals, flexible breakfasts and eliminate all unhealthy food marketing to students.
  • Enforce existing laws that direct most health insurers to cover obesity-related preventive services at no-cost sharing to patients.
  • Cover evidence-based comprehensive pediatric weight management programs and services in Medicaid.

 

State by State rates of adult obesity – highest to lowest

Tie: Mississippi and West Virginia (39.5%), 3. Arkansas (37.1%), 4. Louisiana (36.8%), 5. Kentucky (36.6%), 6. Alabama (36.2%), 7. Iowa (35.3%), 8. North Dakota (35.1%), 9. Missouri, (35.0%),  10. – Tie: Oklahoma and Texas (34.8%), 12. – Tie: Kansas and Tennessee (34.4%), 14. South Carolina (34.3 %), 15. – Tie: Indiana and Nebraska (34.1%), 17. Ohio (34.0%), 18. Delaware (33.5%), 19 – Tie: Michigan, North Carolina (33.0), 21. Georgia (32.5%), 22. New Mexico (32.3%), 23. Wisconsin (32.0%), 24. Illinois (31.8%), 25. – Tie: Maryland and Pennsylvania (30.9%), 27. Florida (30.7%), 28 – Tie: Maine and Virginia (30.4%), 30. Tie: Minnesota and South Dakota (30.1%), 32. Oregon (29.9 %), 33. New Hampshire (29.6%), 34. Three-way Tie: Alaska, Arizona and Nevada (29.5%), 37. Wyoming (29.0%), 38. Washington (28.7%), 39. Idaho (28.4%), 40. Utah (27.8%), 41. Rhode Island (27.7%), 42. New York (27.6%), 43. Vermont (27.5%), 44. Connecticut (27.4%), 45. Montana (26.9%), 46. California (25.8%), 47. – Tie: Massachusetts and New Jersey (25.7%), 49. Hawaii (24.9%), 50. District of Columbia (24.7%), 51. Colorado (23.0%).

# # #

 

Trust for America’s Health is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that promotes optimal health for every person and community and makes the prevention of illness and injury a national priority.  www.tfah.org. Twitter: @healthyamerica1

 

 

 

 

Tasas de obesidad en Estados Unidos con altos récords históricos

Nueve estados alcanzan tasas de obesidad en adultos superiores al 35 por ciento

El Reporte demanda por Impuestos para las Bebidas Azucaradas, Programas Ampliados de Apoyo Nutricional SNAP y WIC y un entorno que fomente la actividad física para ayudar a abordar la crisis de salud

(Washington, DC) – 12 de septiembre de 2019 – Nueve estados de EE. UU. Tenían tasas de obesidad en adultos superiores al 35 por ciento en 2018, en comparación con siete estados en ese nivel en 2017, un nivel histórico de obesidad en los EE. UU., Según el 16 ° Estado anual de Obesidad: mejores políticas para un informe más saludable de América publicado hoy por el Trust for America’s Health (TFAH).

El informe basado en parte en datos recientemente publicados del Sistema de Vigilancia del Factor de Riesgo del Comportamiento (BRFSS, por su sigla en ingles) de los Centros para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades, y el análisis realizado por TFAH, proporciona las tasas de obesidad anuales en todo el país. La serie El estado de la obesidad y este informe fueron posibles gracias a el financiamiento de la Fundación Robert Wood Johnson.

La obesidad tiene graves consecuencias para la salud, incluido un mayor riesgo de diabetes tipo 2, presión arterial alta, accidente cerebrovascular y muchos tipos de cáncer. Se estima que la obesidad aumenta el gasto nacional en atención médica en $ 149 billones anuales (aproximadamente la mitad de lo cual es pagado por Medicare y Medicaid) y el sobrepeso y la obesidad es la razón más común por la que los adultos jóvenes no son elegibles para el servicio militar.

Las tasas de obesidad varían considerablemente entre los estados, con Mississippi y West Virginia con el nivel más alto de obesidad en adultos en la nación con 39.5 por ciento y Colorado con la tasa más baja con 23.0 por ciento.

Por primera vez, las tasas de obesidad en adultos superaron el 35 por ciento en nueve estados en 2018: Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Dakota del Norte y Virginia Occidental.

No muy lejos atrás en el 2012, ningún estado tenía una tasa de obesidad en adultos superior al 35 por ciento y en los últimos cinco años (2013 y 2018) 33 estados tuvieron incrementos estadísticamente significativos en sus tasas de obesidad en adultos.

“Estos últimos datos indican que nuestra crisis nacional de obesidad está empeorando”, dijo John Auerbach, presidente y director ejecutivo de Trust for America’s Health. “Nos dicen que casi 50 años después de la curva ascendente de las tasas de obesidad todavía no hemos encontrado la combinación correcta de programas para detener la epidemia”. Los programas aislados y los llamados a cambios en el estilo de vida no son suficientes. En cambio, nuestro informe destaca los cambios fundamentales que se necesitan en las condiciones sociales y económicas que hacen que sea difícil para las personas comer alimentos saludables y hacer suficiente ejercicio “.

Impacto diferencial entre las poblaciones minoritarias

El informe destaca que los niveles de obesidad están estrechamente vinculados a las condiciones socioeconómicas. Las personas con ingresos más bajos están más en riesgo. Las comunidades de color, que tienen más probabilidades de vivir en vecindarios con pocas opciones de alimentos saludables y actividad física, y que a menudo son el objetivo de una comercialización generalizada de alimentos poco saludables, también tienen un riesgo elevado.

A partir de 2015-2016, casi la mitad de los adultos latinos (47 por ciento) y los adultos negros (46.8) tenían obesidad, mientras que las tasas de obesidad entre adultos blancos y asiáticos fueron de 37.9 por ciento y 12.7 por ciento respectivamente. La incidencia de obesidad también fue más alta entre los niños latinos con un 25.8 por ciento, mientras que el 22 por ciento de los niños negros tienen obesidad, el 14 por ciento de los niños blancos tienen obesidad y el 11 por ciento de los niños asiáticos tienen obesidad.

¿Qué podría funcionar?

Si bien las tasas de obesidad son alarmantes, hay nuevos datos que ofrecen la promesa de políticas que combaten la obesidad, como promover alimentos más saludables para los niños a través de paquetes de alimentos renovados de WIC y fomentar el cambio de comportamiento a través de impuestos sobre las bebidas azucaradas.

  • Las tasas de obesidad para los niños inscritos en WIC (Programa Especial de Nutrición Suplementaria para Mujeres, Bebés y Niños) continúa disminuyendo, de 15.9 por ciento en 2010 a 13.9 por ciento en 2016. En 2009, el Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos (USDA, por su siglas en inglés) actualizó los paquetes de alimentos de WIC para cumplir más estrechamente con las recomendaciones nacionales. pautas dietéticas que incluyen la adición de más frutas, verduras y granos integrales y niveles reducidos de grasa en la leche y la fórmula infantil. Un estudio del condado de Los Ángeles publicado este año encontró que los niños de 4 años que habían recibido el paquete de alimentos WIC revisado desde su nacimiento habían reducido los riegos de padecer obesidad.
  • Varias ciudades de EE. UU. Y la Nación Navajo han aprobado impuestos locales sobre las bebidas azucaradas que se muestran prometedoras como un medio para cambiar los hábitos de bebidas de los consumidores. Los estudios de un impuesto de 1 centavo por onza en Berkeley, California y un impuesto de 1,5 centavos por onza en Filadelfia, Pensilvania, encontraron que el consumo de bebidas azucaradas disminuyó significativamente después de la imposición del impuesto.

“Políticas como estas están demostrando ser efectivas para cambiar el comportamiento. Pero, ninguna solución única, por prometedora que sea, es suficiente. La obesidad es un problema complejo y necesitará soluciones multisectoriales y multifactoriales “, dijo Auerbach de TFAH.

“Crear las condiciones que permitan a las personas tomar decisiones saludables con mayor facilidad es fundamental para prevenir la obesidad, al igual que priorizar la inversión en las comunidades más afectadas por la crisis”, dijo Auerbach.

Recomendaciones para la acción política

El informe incluye 31 recomendaciones para la acción política del gobierno federal, estatal y local, en varios sectores, diseñado para mejorar el acceso a alimentos nutritivos y proporcionar oportunidades seguras para la actividad física, al tiempo que minimiza las tácticas perjudiciales de marketing y publicidad.

Entre las recomendaciones del informe para las políticas para abordar la crisis de obesidad están:

  • Ampliar el Programa Especial de Nutrición Suplementaria para Mujeres, Bebés y Niños (WIC) a los 6 años para niños y durante dos años después del parto para las madres y financiar completamente el Programa de Orientación de Pares de WIC para la lactancia materna.
  • Aumentar el precio de las bebidas azucaradas mediante impuestos especiales y utilizar los ingresos para abordar las disparidades socioeconómicas y de salud.
  • Asegurarse de que los CDC tengan los recursos suficientes para otorgar a cada estado fondos apropiados para implementar estrategias de prevención de la obesidad basadas en evidencia (actualmente, los CDC solo tienen fondos suficientes para trabajar con 16 estados).
  • Hacer que sea más difícil comercializar alimentos no saludables para los niños al poner fin a los vacíos fiscales federales y las deducciones de costos comerciales relacionados con la publicidad de dichos alimentos para el público joven.
  • Financiar completamente el programa de Apoyo al Estudiante y Enriquecimiento Académico y otros programas federales que apoyan la educación física del estudiante.
  • Fomentar la actividad física segura mediante la financiación de Rutas Seguras a las Escuelas (SRTS), Complete Streets, Vision Zero y otras iniciativas de seguridad para peatones a través de fondos federales de infraestructura y transporte.
  • Asegurar de que los programas contra el hambre y la asistencia nutricional, como el Programa de Nutrición Suplementaria (SNAP), WIC y otros, sigan las Pautas dietéticas para estadounidenses y hagan del acceso a alimentos nutritivos un principio básico del programa.
  • Fortalecer y expandir los programas de nutrición escolar más allá de los estándares federales para incluir comidas universales, desayunos flexibles y eliminar todo el mercadeo de alimentos poco saludables para los estudiantes.
  • Hacer cumplir las leyes existentes que ordenan a la mayoría de las aseguradoras de salud que cubran los servicios preventivos relacionados con la obesidad sin costo compartido para los pacientes.
  • Cubrir el manejo del programa integral del peso pediátrico basado en evidencia y servicios en Medicaid.

Tasas de obesidad adulta por estado, de mayor a menor:

1. (Empatados): Mississippi and Virginia Occidental (39.5%), Arkansas (37.1%), 4. Louisiana (36.8%), 5. Kentucky (36.6%), 6. Alabama (36.2%), 7. Iowa (35.3%), 8. Dakota del Norte (35.1%), 9. Missouri, (35.0%), 10. – Empatados: Oklahoma and Texas (34.8%), 12. – Empatados: Kansas and Tennessee (34.4%), 14.  Carolina del Sur (34.3 %), 15. – : Indiana and Nebraska (34.1%), 17. Ohio (34.0%), 18. Delaware (33.5%), 19 – Empatados: Michigan, Carolina del Norte (33.0), 21. Georgia (32.5%), 22. Nuevo Mexico (32.3%), 23. Wisconsin (32.0%), 24. Illinois (31.8%), 25. – Empatados: Maryland and Pennsylvania (30.9%), 27. Florida (30.7%), 28 – Empatados: Maine and Virginia (30.4%), 30. Empatados: Minnesota and Dakota del Sur (30.1%), 32. Oregon (29.9 %), 33. New Hampshire (29.6%), 34. Empatados: Alaska, Arizona and Nevada (29.5%), 37. Wyoming (29.0%), 38. Washington (28.7%), 39. Idaho (28.4%), 40. Utah (27.8%), 41. Rhode Island (27.7%), 42. Nueva York (27.6%), 43. Vermont (27.5%), 44. Connecticut (27.4%), 45. Montana (26.9%), 46. California (25.8%), 47. – Empatados: Massachusetts and Nueva Jersey (25.7%), 49. Hawaii (24.9%), 50. Districto de Columbia (24.7%), 51. Colorado (23.0%).

# # #

 

Trust for America’s Health es una organización sin fines de lucro y no partidista que promueve la salud óptima para cada persona y comunidad y hace de la prevención de enfermedades una prioridad nacional. WWW.tfah.org

 

Half of States Scored 5 or Lower Out of 10 Indicators in Report on Health Emergency Preparedness

Report Finds Funding to Support Base Level of Preparedness Cut More than Half Since 2002

 

Washington, D.C., December 19, 2017 – In Ready or Not? Protecting the Public’s Health from Diseases, Disasters and Bioterrorism, 25 states scored a 5 or lower on 10 key indicators of public health preparedness. Alaska scored lowest at 2 out of 10, and Massachusetts and Rhode Island scored the highest at 9 out of 10.

The report, issued today by the Trust for America’s Health (TFAH), found the country does not invest enough to maintain strong, basic core capabilities for health security readiness and, instead, is in a continued state of inefficiently reacting with federal emergency supplemental funding packages each time a disaster strikes.

According to Ready or Not?, federal funding to support the base level of preparedness has been cut by more than half since 2002, which has eroded advancements and reduced the country’s capabilities.

“While we’ve seen great public health preparedness advances, often at the state and community level, progress is continually stilted, halted and uneven,” said John Auerbach, president and CEO of TFAH.  “As a nation, we—year after year—fail to fully support public health and preparedness. If we don’t improve our baseline funding and capabilities, we’ll continue to be caught completely off-guard when hurricanes, wildfires and infectious disease outbreaks hit.”

Ready or Not? features six expert commentaries from public health officials who share perspectives on and experiences from the historic hurricanes, wildfires and other events of 2017, including from California, Florida, Louisiana and Texas.

The report also 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:

  • Just 19 states and Washington, D.C. increased or maintained funding for public health from Fiscal Year (FY) 2015-2016 to FY 2016-2017.
  • The primary source for state and local preparedness for health emergencies has been cut by about one-third (from $940 million in FY 2002 to $667 million in FY 2017) and hospital emergency preparedness funds have been cut in half ($514 million in FY 2003 to $254 million in FY 2017).
  • In 20 states and Washington, D.C. 70 percent or more of hospitals reported meeting Antibiotic Stewardship Program core elements in 2016.
  • Just 20 states vaccinated at least half of their population (ages 6 months and older) for the seasonal flu from Fall 2016 to Spring 2017—and no state was above 56 percent.
  • 47 state labs and Washington, D.C. provided biosafety training and/or provided information about biosafety training courses (July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017).

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

  • Communities should maintain a key set of foundational capabilities and focus on performance outcomes in exchange for increased flexibility and reduced bureaucracy.
  • Ensuring stable, sufficient health emergency preparedness funding to maintain a standing set of core capabilities so they are ready when needed. In addition, a complementary Public Health Emergency Fund is needed to provide immediate surge funding for specific action for major emerging threats.
  • Strengthening and maintaining consistent support for global health security as an effective strategy for preventing and controlling health crises. Germs know no borders.
  • Innovating and modernizing infrastructure needs – including a more focused investment strategy to support science and technology upgrades that leverage recent breakthroughs and hold the promise of transforming the nation’s ability to promptly detect and contain disease outbreaks and respond to other health emergencies.
  • 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 Chief Health Strategist for a community.
  • Reconsidering health system preparedness for new threats and mass outbreaks.  Develop stronger coalitions and partnerships among providers, hospitals and healthcare facilities, insurance providers, pharmaceutical and health equipment businesses, emergency management and public health agencies.
  • Preventing the negative health consequences of climate change and weather-related threats. It is essential to build the capacity to anticipate, plan for and respond to climate-related events.
  • 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.
  • Supporting a culture of resilience so all communities are better prepared to cope with and recover from emergencies, particularly focusing on those who are most vulnerable.   Sometimes the aftermath of an emergency situation may be more harmful than the initial event.  This must also include support for local organizations and small businesses to prepare for and to respond to emergencies.

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.

9 out of 10: Massachusetts and Rhode Island

8 out of 10: Delaware, North Carolina and Virginia

7 out of 10: Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York, Oregon and Washington

6 out of 10: California, District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont and West Virginia

5 out of 10: Georgia, Idaho, Maine, Mississippi, Montana and Tennessee

4 out of 10: Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania

3 out of 10: Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming

2 out of 10: Alaska

 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.

 ###

Rhode Island’s Efforts to Prevent and Respond to Childhood Lead Exposure

Background

In June 2016, the Rhode Island General Assembly passed the Lead and Copper Drinking Water Protection Act, requiring schools, day care facilities, public playgrounds, shelters and foster homes with children under six, and other state facilities to certify that drinking water conduits are lead-safe. It also directs state inspectors to conduct an annual lead and copper test at these facilities. In conjunction with the law, which will be implemented once regulations are promulgated, the state created a commission to study lead in the water system.

Documentation of Lead-Safe Remodeler/Renovator License Required to Receive a Building Permit to Complete Housing Renovations

In 2011, the City of Providence began requiring applicants for building permits at pre-1978 homes to provide proof of training and licensing in lead-safe work practices. The state of Rhode Island requires all construction contractors working in homes and child care facilities built before 1978 to hold a Lead-Safe Remodeler/Renovator License or a higher level of lead hazard control certification. The lead-safe remodeler/renovator program has been overseen by the state since 2001. It is authorized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to administer the federal Renovation, Repair, and Painting rule in Rhode Island. To increase compliance with the state remodeler/renovator law, the City of Providence will issue permits for construction work at properties covered by the law only if proof of licensure is provided. In January 2015, the City of Pawtucket put in place a similar requirement: contractors must document their training and licensure to receive a building permit for renovations.

Use of Local Housing Officials to Enforce Lead Hazard Mitigation Law

The state of Rhode Island passed the Lead Hazard Mitigation Act in 2002 and implemented regulations in 2004. Under the law, rental property owners are required to attend a training on unsafe lead conditions, inspect/repair any lead hazards at their properties, make residents aware of their findings and actions, address residents’ lead-hazard concerns, use lead-safe work practices during maintenance, and verify each unit’s compliance through a lead inspector. Typically, the owner must have the property inspected every two years and prove its safety for children by showing a Certificate of Conformance (COC) or a Lead-Safe or Lead-Free Certificate. Owners of two- and three-dwelling properties who live onsite are exempt from the law.

Since the law’s enactment the state has been challenged by compliance. In 2014, when the Providence Plan completed an evaluation of the Lead Hazard Mitigation Law, it found that only 20 percent of the covered properties had complied with the regulations within the first five years of implementation. Several cities have taken steps to improve enforcement. Providence, for example, created a separate division of Housing Court to address lead violations.

The Inspection and Standards division reported that of 537 lead violation cases filed over the first four years, 484 resulted in corrective action. An analysis conducted by the Rhode Island Department of Health discovered that between 2012 and 2013, there was a significant decline in children with elevated blood lead levels in Providence. Notably, the declines coincided with the implementation of the building permitting requirements and the lead docket.

Medicaid Reimbursement for Lead Follow-Up Services and Lead Centers and Reimbursement

Rhode Island Medicaid, which covers nearly 40 percent of children in the state and roughly half of children below six with elevated blood lead levels, provides reimbursement for lead follow-up services under its 1115 demonstration waiver (known as the Rhode Island Comprehensive Demonstration). The waiver gives Rhode Island the flexibility to “redesign the state’s Medicaid program to provide cost-effective services that will ensure beneficiaries receive the appropriate services in the least restrictive and most appropriate setting.”

Lead follow-up services eligible for reimbursement in Rhode Island are provided through four “lead centers” certified through the state health department. Because the services are offered under specifications of the contract with Rhode Island Medicaid, the centers have the flexibility to hire a range of personnel to deliver in-home lead services. These include community health workers, nurses, and certified lead inspectors.

Medicaid reimbursement is currently available to the lead centers for follow-up services provided to Medicaid-enrolled children up to age six who are identified to have elevated blood lead levels. The lead centers bill by the “Current Procedural Terminology” billing code for each service provided to Medicaid recipients. Medicaid reimburses them for an initial visit, a follow-up visit, or to close the case. The lead centers are reimbursed by the state for services provided to non-Medicaid-enrolled children.

Follow-Up Services: Education, Case Management, Assessment, and Inspection

Written Rhode Island Medicaid standards require the lead centers to contact associated healthcare providers when providing lead follow-up services. For each child or family, the lead center identifies a specific case manager who handles all communication and coordination with the child’s primary care provider or treating physician, all treatment providers and community support agencies, and the child’s health plan, when appropriate. When necessary, the lead center case manager also works with the Rhode Island Department of Human Services and Department of Health, serving as the point of contact for the child, family, and all providers and agencies.

Along with case management, other Medicaid-reimbursable follow-up services provided to children under age six with elevated blood lead levels by Rhode Island lead center staff include:

  • Visual assessment of the primary residence
  • Nutrition counseling
  • Lead education
  • Interim controls to limit exposure to lead hazards
  • Information on safe cleaning techniques
  • In-home education

For children with blood lead levels elevated above the designated threshold (as set by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), Medicaid also reimburses for a Comprehensive Environmental Lead Inspection of the home by a Rhode Island Department of Health lead inspector. After the inspection, lead center staff review the results with the family to help them understand sources of lead in their home.

The lead centers provide some education and other services to children with blood lead levels that are high but do not exceed the designated threshold. However, these services are funded by a Rhode Island Department of Health contract, not by Medicaid. The services include an educational home visit to discuss lead poisoning, nutrition, and cleaning practices that can protect children from additional lead risks; a Visual Environmental Lead Assessment by a trained community health worker, which provides education and preventative next steps; and the provision of soil and dust wipes for the home. The Rhode Island Department of Health is also piloting a limited environmental investigation (soil testing only) in partnership with the lead centers for children with lower blood lead elevations that do not meet the designated threshold.

Additional Services: Structural Remediation

While Rhode Island Medicaid can provide some reimbursement for window replacement and spot repair of conditions found to pose a lead-related threat to children with elevated blood lead levels, this structural remediation benefit has been used rarely. The primary reasons include: (1) the current reimbursement rate for window replacements is less than the typical replacement cost and (2) the mechanisms by which lead centers receive this reimbursement are cumbersome. In an effort to increase use, the Rhode Island Department of Health is exploring ways to improve the window replacement program. One possibility may be a revolving loan fund since lead centers must pay for replacement first and seek Medicaid reimbursement later.

In addition, when a lead violation is found and a notice of violation issued, property owners and families are automatically referred to local Housing and Urban Development-funded lead hazard control grant programs that may pay for structural remediation. Access to these grant programs depend on income, the property’s age (pre-1978), and the presence of a child under age six living in or frequently visiting the home or unit. The Rhode Island Department of Health is currently assessing how often cited owners use these grant programs and whether or not there are enrollment barriers.

Use of Medicaid Reimbursement for Lead Follow-Up Services

This table from the Rhode Island Executive Office of Health and Human Services shows the total number of Medicaid-enrolled children who received lead follow-up services from the Rhode Island lead centers and the corresponding amount of total Medicaid reimbursement for selected years between 2006 and 2014.

Rhode Island’s current Medicaid 1115 demonstration waiver is in place through 2018, and there has been consistent support for the continuation of the lead follow-up service reimbursement program in the state. Stakeholders attribute this enthusiasm to the relatively low total cost of the lead program within Rhode Island’s overall Medicaid budget, along with the well-known dangers of lead poisoning.

________________________________________

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 capture everything a location is doing on lead, but aims to highlight some of the important work.

Health Leads

Health Leads, operated by lay resource specialists and college student volunteers, is a collaborative comprised of partner hospitals, health systems, community health centers, and Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) working together to integrate basic resources such as access to food, heat, and other necessities into health care delivery. Operating via clinical settings since 1996, this initiative enables providers to prescribe solutions to patients helping them manage their disease and lives. The impact of Health Leads is two-fold. The program expands clinics’ capacity to secure nonmedical resources for patients— in 2013, 92 percent of patients identified that Health Leads helped them secure at least one resource they needed to be healthy. Additionally, Health Leads is producing a pipeline of new leaders—in 2013, nearly 70 percent of Health Leads graduates entered jobs or graduate study in the fields of health or poverty. Health Leads sustainability model utilizes earned revenue, national and local philanthropy, and in-kind contributions from volunteers and health care partners to fund its operation. To read more about this innovative program, see this brief summary [link].