SEATTLE - Many men believe they're less vulnerable to COVID-19, and that has consequences for how safe they really are during the pandemic.
A new survey conducted in the U.S. and U.K. finds women are more likely to wear face masks than men. Family medicine physician Dr. Scott Itano with Kaiser Permanente Washington says the issue is what he calls "toxic masculinity" - viewing manliness through a traditional lens in which men have to be brave and self-reliant at all times.
"They're less likely to be vulnerable or show signs of weakness," says Itano. "And I think wearing masks and seeking care from a doctor, to them, feels like showing a sign of weakness or being vulnerable."
Unfortunately, he says, this mind-set could come at a high cost. According to Washington State Department of Health data, 54% of COVID-19-related deaths have been men.
Starting today, face masks are required in public in Washington.
Itano says people don't just put themselves at risk when they don't follow proper precautions to avoid novel coronavirus exposure - they risk other people's lives, too.
"Even though a person might be a young, healthy 35-year-old man,," says Itano, "he could have grandparents or loved ones, or friends who are immunocompromised or at high risk for complications."
Itano says men's COVID-19 attitudes extend to how they manage their health in other ways. He says it's often difficult to get men to come in for check-ups.
He suggests they seek out the right doctor for them.
"Ask your buddies who they go to for their medical care and check bios online," says Itano. "Most systems and doctors have online profiles, where you can read about them and find someone you think you might get along with."
He adds it isn't helpful to be confrontational about COVID-19 or self-care in general. Itano usually thanks his male patients for making the effort to come in and see him.
Disclosure: Kaiser Health Plan of Washington Project contributes to our fund for reporting on Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention, Health Issues, Hunger/Food/Nutrition, Senior Issues. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Access to reduced-price medication is a necessity for many rural Missourians with low income.
Rep. Cindy O'Laughlin, R-Shelbina, the Senate Floor Leader, said Big Pharma is trying to confuse legislators with unrelated hot-button topics such as abortion access and illegal immigration in a last-ditch effort to stop the state from joining a program to force drugmakers to sell medicines at a discount.
"Appealing to nuclear topics, which really do not apply in this situation, is a disingenuous way to try to defeat a bill that is actually good for Missouri," O'Laughlin asserted.
O'Laughlin pointed out the program is transparent, and uses the tax money saved to help low-income families deal with chronic conditions such as diabetes.
The drugmakers object to the government forcing them to give significant discounts, arguing hospitals' and for-profit pharmacies' bottom lines, particularly those owned by pharmacy benefits managers, are being exploited. Nationally, 46% of contract pharmacy agreements involve pharmacies linked to the three largest benefits managers.
Rep. Tara Peters, R-Rolla, introduced the 340B contract pharmacy access billand said the lobbying is absurd.
"Federally, 340B program does not allow for abortion drugs," Peters stressed. "Why would any legislation that we're trying to pass in the state allow for that? I mean, the thought of that even being in existence is absolutely ludicrous."
The Missouri Senate passed the bill 27-3 on Monday and it now goes to the House.
get more stories like this via email
Alabama is running out of time to tackle Medicaid expansion this legislative session.
More than 230 people gathered earlier this month with the group Alabama Arise, urging state lawmakers to prioritize the issue. Their message: Access to health care isn't just a matter of policy, it can be a matter of life and death.
Debbie Smith, Cover Alabama campaign director for Alabama Arise, said as the session winds down, the group will continue to echo the call for increased access to health coverage. She thinks it would not only save lives but revitalize communities across the state.
"Over 80% of our rural hospitals are operating in the red," Smith pointed out. "Not a great stat. About 19 rural hospitals are at immediate risk of closure, and those are the lifeblood of those communities. They're on life support."
Smith emphasized hospitals at financial risk also put their workforce at risk. Those who are against Medicaid expansion believe it is ultimately unaffordable for the state. However, Smith argued it could save the state nearly $400 million over the next six years. According to the Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama, those savings would be enough to cover the cost.
The council's study also showed Medicaid expansion would generate nearly $2 billion of economic growth. Beyond economic benefits, Smith pointed to the stark disparities in maternal and infant mortality rates in Alabama.
She stressed Medicaid expansion would do more than provide health care coverage during pregnancy or postpartum, it is about ensuring comprehensive coverage.
"We've been lucky enough to expand Medicaid coverage up to 12 months postpartum but we still need to figure out how to cover people before they even get pregnant," Smith asserted. "It's really important for people to have health coverage so they can address any kind of issues they might have, like if they have diabetes or high blood pressure that might affect their pregnancy in the future."
With limited time left in the legislative session, she noted one option could be Gov. Kay Ivey's executive authority to enact Medicaid expansion. Smith added using the power could be the simplest path forward, backed by the promise of additional funding from the American Rescue Plan.
Disclosure: Alabama Arise contributes to our fund for reporting on Budget Policy and Priorities, Health Issues, and Poverty Issues. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
A Connecticut bill would expand the state's paid sick leave law.
The initial 2011 law requires 40 hours of paid sick leave for workers at employers with 50 businesses or more. The new bill covers all workers regardless of their employer's size.
Janée Woods Weber, executive director of the nonprofit She Leads Justice, said the legislation can benefit workers without access to paid sick leave.
"These are people for whom taking a few hours off when their child has a cold or perhaps they need to take themselves to a doctor's appointment are the kinds of challenges that many of us don't worry about, those of us who do have access to paid sick days," Woods Weber explained.
Small businesses were concerned about how the change could affect them. To address worries, the bill has a three-year implementation cycle giving them time to adapt. It also creates a task force studying the feasibility of providing tax credits to businesses with the smallest workforces. The bill passed the House and awaits a vote in the Senate.
An estimated 11% of workers are eligible for paid sick leave under the current criteria. Though expanding the law has taken over a decade, Woods Weber argued it has always been necessary.
"Nobody should be forced to make what is often times a very difficult and sometimes impossible choice between their livelihood," Woods Weber emphasized. "Getting a paycheck and getting to take paid time off to take care of themselves or a loved one if they get sick."
She added that once the bill is passed, the state can build off it by allowing people to earn more than 40 hours of paid sick time. Woods Weber said the isolation requirements during the pandemic forced anyone who got COVID-19 to use their allotted sick time all at once for isolation.
get more stories like this via email