Vision Care
Section Newsletter
Winter 2009

AHRQ HCUP Data Findings

One in Five Hospital Admissions Are for Patients with Mental Disorders

About 1.4 million hospitalizations in 2006 involved patients who were admitted for a mental illness, while another 7.1 million patients had a mental disorder in addition to the physical condition for which they were admitted, according to a recent report from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

The 8.5 million hospitalizations involving patients with mental illness represented about 22 percent of the overall 39.5 million hospitalizations in 2006. AHRQ's analysis found that of the nearly 1.4 million hospitalizations specifically for treatment of a mental disorder in 2006:

  • Nearly 730,000 involved depression or other mood disorders, such as bipolar disease.
  • Schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders caused another 381,000.
  • Delirium — which can cause agitation or inability to focus attention  — dementia, amnesia and other cognitive problems accounted for 131,000.
  • Anxiety disorders and adjustment disorders — stress-related illnesses that can affect feeling, thoughts, and behaviors — accounted for another 76,000.
  • The remaining roughly 34,000 hospitalizations involved attention-deficit disorder, disruptive behavior, impulse control, personality disorders, or mental disorders usually diagnosed in infancy or later childhood.

These findings are based on data from Hospital Stays Related to Mental Health, 2006 (HCUP Statistical Brief #62). The report uses statistics from the 2006 Nationwide Inpatient Sample, a database of hospital inpatient stays that is nationally representative of inpatient stays in all short-term, non-federal hospitals. The data are drawn from hospitals that comprise 90 percent of all discharges in the United States and include all patients, regardless of insurance type, as well as the uninsured.

 

Lung Cancer Rates Dropping but Hospitalization Rates Remain Constant

Hospital admissions for lung cancer remained relatively stable at roughly 150,000 a year between 1995 and 2006 despite a steady decline in the number of Americans diagnosed with the disease, according another recent report from the AHRQ.

Admissions have remained constant, in part, because lung cancer patients are surviving longer and undergoing more hospital-related treatments such as chemotherapy and tumor-removal surgery, according to AHRQ experts. Smoking is considered a main cause of lung cancer — the most deadly type of cancer — but the disease can also result from exposure to hazardous substances such as asbestos, radon, pollution or second-hand smoke, as well as genetic predisposition to the disease.

AHRQ's analysis also found that:

  • The average hospital cost for a lung cancer patient in 2006 was $14,200 (about $1,900 a day). The total cost for all patients was about $2.1 billion.
  • The death rate of hospitalized lung cancer patients was 13 percent — 5 times higher than the average overall death rate (2.6 percent) for hospitalized patients.
  • Only 2.4 percent of hospitalized lung cancer patients in 2006 were younger than 44. About 63 percent were 65 or older.
  • Hospitalizations for lung cancer were far more common in the South (89 admissions per 100,000 persons) than in the Northeast (25 admissions per 100,000 persons).

These findings are based on data from Hospital Stays for Lung Cancer, 2006 (HCUP Statistical Brief # 63). The report also uses statistics from the 2006 Nationwide Inpatient Sample.

Pressure Ulcers Increasing Among Hospital Patients

Hospitalizations involving patients with pressure ulcers — either developed before or after admission — increased by nearly 80 percent between 1993 and 2006, according to another recent report AHRQ.

Pressure ulcers, also called bed sores, typically occur among patients who can't move or have lost sensation. Prolonged periods of immobility put pressure on the skin, soft tissue, muscle, or bone, causing ulcers to develop. Older patients, stroke victims, people who are paralyzed, or those with diabetes or dementia are particularly vulnerable. Pressure ulcers may indicate poor quality of care at home, in a nursing home, or hospital. Severe cases can lead to life-threatening infections.

AHRQ's analysis found that of the 503,300 pressure ulcer-related hospitalizations in 2006:

  • Pressure ulcers were the primary diagnosis in about 45,500 hospital admissions — up from 35,800 in 1993.
  • Pressure ulcers were a secondary diagnosis in 457,800 hospital admissions — up from 245,600 in 1993. These patients, admitted primarily for pneumonia, infections, or other medical problems, developed pressure ulcers either before or after admission.
  • Among hospitalizations involving pressure ulcers as a primary diagnosis, about 1 in 25 admissions ended in death. The death rate was higher when pressure ulcers were a secondary diagnosis — about 1 in 8.
  • Pressure ulcer-related hospitalizations are longer and more expensive than many other hospitalizations. While the overall average hospital stay is 5 days and costs about $10,000, the average pressure ulcer-related stay extends to between 13 and 14 days and costs between $16,755 and $20,430, depending on medical circumstances.

These findings are based on data from Hospitalizations Related to Pressure Ulcers Among Adults 18 Years and Older, 2006. The report also uses statistics from the 2006 Nationwide Inpatient Sample.

2009 Policy Process

2009 Policy Process Calendar

* + December 2008
Staff, in conjunction with the Action Board and Joint Policy Committee (JPC), will develop a list of recommended subject areas to be considered for possible archiving. Current policy gaps will also be identified based on the current APHA legislative and advocacy agenda that is directed by the Governing Council's policy priorities. (See Policy Preparation) Notification sent to encourage APHA units to review suggested policy subject areas to be reviewed for archiving, combining and updating along with call for new policies.

2009

  
+ January 14
Members will be notified of the preliminary list of selected subject areas proposed for the Annual Policy Review Process via the monthly Inside Public Health newsletter. Any APHA unit may participate in reviewing any policy chosen for review. Units should also begin identifying those subject areas that they may have an interest in reviewing.
+ January 23
Members' suggestions for additional public health subjects in need of review for possible archiving are due before 11:59 p.m. (EST) to policy@apha.org. APHA's Action Board examines submissions and identifies final subjects for review; selections are sent to Sections, Affiliates, SPIGS, Caucuses, committees and boards for review.
+ February 4
The Action Board Policy Committee, in coordination with staff, will identify the specific policies that fall within the selected subject areas approved by the JPC to be considered for review and will forward a list of all policies to be reviewed in each selected subject area to the JPC.
* February 17
Proposed new resolutions and position papers for the 2009 New Policy Process are due in electronic form to APHA headquarters by 11:59 p.m. (EST). Proposals should be sent to policy@apha.org. (See Preliminary Processing)
+ February 25
JPC conference call to consider the list of policies coordinated by the Action Board Policy Committee and staff for review for possible archiving.
* February 26
Proposed new policy statements posted on APHA Web site for APHA member review.
* March 31
Member comments on proposed new policies are due by 11:59 p.m. (EST) to policy@apha.org.
* April 20-22
JPC, Science Board and Education Board meet to review proposed new policy statements and member comments. (See Initial JPC Review)
* May 6
Deadline for JPC to send letters to authors of proposed new policies with comments and assessments.
+ May 21
For the policy review process, each Section, Affiliate, SPIG and Caucus completes its reviews of the policies assigned to it and reports their recommendations to the JPC. Comments from individual members are also due at this time. All comments should be submitted to policy@apha.org. The Action Board Policy Committee collates the recommendations received by all Sections, Affiliates, SPIGS and Caucuses and provides the list to the JPC.
+ June 9
JPC conference call to review the collated review recommendations and create a preliminary consent calendar that contains a JPC proposed disposition for each policy reviewed in the policy review process. (See May 21)
* June 16
New policies revised based on JPC comments and any appeals of negative assessments are due to APHA and should be e-mailed to policy@apha.org by 11:59 p.m. (EST).
+ July 10
The preliminary consent calendar and the collated recommendations for reviewed policies recommended for archiving are posted on the APHA Web site, Members Only section, and an e-mail alert is sent to all APHA members.
* + July
APHA's Executive Board considers the preliminary archiving consent calendar that contains a JPC proposed disposition for each reviewed policy and any appeals of new policies rejected by the JPC.
* Late July
Finalized new proposed policy statements posted on APHA Web site
+ August 28
Deadline for member comments on archiving consent calendar, due to policy@apha.org by 11:59 p.m. (EST).
+ Mid-September
JPC reviews the comments and concerns and finalizes the consent calendar for policies recommended for archiving.
* November 7
Latebreaking new policies due by 6:00 p.m. (EST) in electronic format to policy@apha.org. No exceptions will be made. (See Other Provisions)
* November 8
Public hearings for proposed new policies held at Annual Meeting (See Public Hearings)
* November 9
JPC develops final recommendations for proposed new policies to present to the Governing Council (See Final JPC Report)

* + November 10

Governing Council considers JPC recommendations on new proposed policies and policies proposed for archiving.
* New Policy Process   + Review and Archiving Policy Process

 

Ready or Not

Report Finds Economic Crisis Hurting U.S. Preparedness for Health Emergencies; More Than Half of States Score 7 or Lower Out of 10 in Readiness Rankings

 

Media contacts: Liz Richardson (202) 223-9870 x 21 or lrichardson@tfah.org or Laura Segal (202) 223-9870 x 27 or lsegal@tfah.org

 

Washington, DC, December 9, 2008 – Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) today released the sixth annual Ready or Not? Protecting the Public’s Health from Diseases, Disasters, and Bioterrorism report, which finds that progress made to better protect the country from disease outbreaks, natural disasters, and bioterrorism is now at risk, due to budget cuts and the economic crisis.  In addition, the report concludes that major gaps remain in many critical areas of preparedness, including surge capacity, rapid disease detection, and food safety.    

 

The report contains state-by-state health preparedness scores based on 10 key indicators to assess health emergency preparedness capabilities.  More than half of states and D.C. achieved a score of seven or less out of 10 key indicators.  Louisiana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin scored the highest with 10 out of 10.  Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Montana, and Nebraska tied for the lowest score with five out of 10.

 

Over the past six years, the Ready or Not? report has documented steady progress toward improved public health preparedness. This year however, TFAH found that cuts in federal funding for state and local preparedness since 2005, coupled with the cuts states are making to their budgets in response to the economic crisis, put that progress at risk.

 

“The economic crisis could result in a serious rollback of the progress we’ve made since September 11, 2001 and Hurricane Katrina to better prepare the nation for emergencies,” said Jeff Levi, PhD, Executive Director of TFAH.  “The 25 percent cut in federal support to protect Americans from diseases, disasters, and bioterrorism is already hurting state response capabilities.  The cuts to state budgets in the next few years could lead to a disaster for the nation’s disaster preparedness.”

 

Some serious 2008 health emergencies include a Salmonella outbreak in jalapeño and Serrano peppers that sickened 1,442 people in 43 states, the largest beef recall in history in February, Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, severe flooding in the Midwest, major wildfires in California in June and November, and a ricin scare in Las Vegas. 

 

Among the key findings:

 

Budget Cuts:  Federal funding for state and local preparedness has been cut more than 25 percent from fiscal year (FY) 2005, and states are no longer receiving any supplemental funding for pandemic flu preparedness, despite increased responsibilities. 

 

  • In addition to the federal decreases, 11 states and D.C. cut their public health budgets in the past year.  In the coming year, according to the Center on Budget and Policy and Priorities, 33 states are facing shortfalls in their 2009 budgets and 16 states are already projecting shortfalls to their 2010 budgets. 

 

Rapid Disease Detection:  Since September 11, 2001, the country has made significant progress in improving disease detection capabilities, but major gaps still remain.

 

  • Only six states do not have a disease surveillance system compatible with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Electronic Disease Surveillance System. 
  • Twenty-four states and D.C. lack the capacity to deliver and receive lab specimens, such as suspected bioterror agents or new disease outbreak samples, on a 24/7 basis.
  • Only three state public health laboratories are not able to meet the expectations of their state’s pandemic flu plans.

 

Food Safety:  America’s food safety system has not been fundamentally modernized in more than 100 years. 

 

  • Twenty states and D.C. did not meet or exceed the national average rate for being able to identify the pathogens responsible for foodborne disease outbreaks in their states.

 

Surge Capacity:  Many states do not have mechanisms in place to support and protect the community assistance that is often required during a major emergency. 

 

  • Twenty-six states do not have laws that reduce or limit liability for businesses and non-profit organizations that help during a public health emergency.
  • Only eight states do not have laws that limit or reduce liability exposure for health care workers who volunteer during a public health emergency.
  • Seventeen states do not have State Medical Reserve Corps Coordinators.

 

Vaccine and Medication Supplies and Distribution:  Ensuring the public can quickly and safely receive medications during a major health emergency is one of the most serious challenges facing public health officials. 

 

  • Sixteen states have purchased less than half of their share of federally-subsidized antivirals to use during a pandemic flu outbreak. 
  • Every state now has an adequate plan for distributing emergency vaccines, antidotes, and medical supplies from the Strategic National Stockpile, according to the CDC.  In 2005, only seven states had adequate plans.  The CDC changed to a different grading system in 2007.  However, questions still remain about the contents of the federal stockpile. 

 

“States are being asked to do more with less, jeopardizing our safety, security, and health,” said Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, M.D., M.B.A., president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.  “We all have a stake in strengthening America's public health system, because it is our first line of defense against health emergencies.”

 

The report also offers a series of recommendations for improving preparedness, including:

 

  • Restoring Full Funding.  At a minimum, federal, state, and local funding for public health emergency preparedness capabilities should be restored to FY 2005 levels.
  • Strengthening Leadership and Accountability.  The next administration must clarify the public health emergency preparedness roles and responsibilities at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
  • Enhancing Surge Capacity and the Public Health Workforce.  Federal, state, and local governments and health care providers must better address altered standards of care, alternative care sites, legal concerns to protect community assistance, and surge workforce issues.    
  • Modernizing Technology and Equipment.  Communications and surveillance systems and laboratories need increased resources for modernization.
  • Improving Community Engagement.  Additional measures must be taken to engage communities in emergency planning and to improve protections for at-risk communities.
  • Incorporating Preparedness into Health Care Reform and Creating an Emergency Health Benefit.  This is needed to contain the spread of disease by providing care to the uninsured and underinsured Americans during major disasters and disease outbreaks.

 

Score Summary: 

 

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.  More information on each indicator is available in the full report on TFAH’s Web site at www.healthyamericans.org and RWJF’s Web site at www.rwjf.org.  The report was supported by a grant from RWJF.   

 

10 out of 10:  Louisiana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Virginia, Wisconsin

9 out of 10: Alabama, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont,

8 out of 10: Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Washington

7 out of 10: California, Colorado, D.C. Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming

6 out of 10: Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, Texas

5 out of 10: Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Nebraska, Montana

 

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. www.healthyamericans.org

 

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation focuses on the pressing health and health care issues facing our country. As the nation’s largest philanthropy devoted exclusively to improving the health and health care of all Americans, the Foundation works with a diverse group of organizations and individuals to identify solutions and achieve comprehensive, meaningful and timely change. For more than 35 years the Foundation has brought experience, commitment, and a rigorous, balanced approach to the problems that affect the health and health care of those it serves. Helping Americans lead healthier lives and get the care they need—the Foundation expects to make a difference in our lifetime. For more information, visit www.rwjf.org.                           

Awards Announcement

 

 

VISION CARE SECTION

AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION

SEEKS AWARDS NOMINATIONS

 

 

The Vision Care Section (VCS) of APHA invites nominations for the Distinguished Service Award, the Outstanding Scientific Paper/Project Award, and the Outstanding Student Paper/Project Award.

 

The Distinguished Service Award :   (Sponsored in part by a grant from Vistakon) Established in 1981, The Distinguished service Award is the highest honor the Section can bestow and is presented to an individual, institution or group who has made an outstanding contribution or demonstrated continual high quality service in the area of public health eye/vision care.

 

The Outstanding Scientific Paper (Project) Award :   This award recognizes an individual, group, or institution that has contributed significantly to the advancement of eye/vision care in the public health field.  The contribution can be a paper either previously published or suitable for publication or a written description of a project.  The paper/project should represent work within the last two or three years, though the project may have been continuous for a longer period.

 

The Outstanding Student Paper (Project) Award: This award recognizes a student or group of students that has contributed significantly to the advancement of eye/vision care in the public health field from the perspective of a student in optometry, medicine, public health, or related health professions programs.  The contribution may be a paper previously published, suitable for publication, or a detailed written description of a project.  The paper or project must represent work that has occurred while the student(s) is/are enrolled in a professional program, although the award may be conferred after graduation.  However, the award may not be granted more than 12 months post graduation.

 

Awards recipients will be honored during the next APHA Annual Meeting scheduled for Philadelphia, Nov. 7-11, 2009.

 

Nominations are requested by March 31, 2009 and should include a narrative statement of 250 words or less with each nomination along with a copy of paper/project to be considered

 

Nominations should be sent by e-mail (preferred) as an attachment. If you wish to send by postal mail please contact me for address.  Thank you.

 

Dr. Siu G. Wong, Chair

APHA - VCS Awards Committee

Phone: (505) 293-7347

Email:  nationofwong@comcast.net  


Award Nomination Instructions

APHA – Vision Care Section

 

Instructions

 

  1. Any person may submit a nomination other than the nominee.
  2. Nominations are to be submitted on the official Award Nomination Form (scan below).
  3. A written statement, not to exceed 250 words, should be submitted with the Award Nomination Form. This statement should amplify and substantiate the reasons why the nominee or group of nominees should be considered for this award.
  4. Attach a current and complete curriculum vitae for the Distinguished Service Award nominee.  Please include education institutions attended, degrees, graduation dates, work history, membership in professional organizations and offices held, honors and awards received and other biographical information.
  5. Nominations should be sent by e mail (preferred) or by postal mail.  
  6. The Committee encourages you to re-submit an earlier unsuccessful nomination.
  7. All nominations must be submitted to the VCS Award Chair by March 31 each calendar year.

 

 

 

NOMINATION FORM

Due March 31

 

Check appropriate award:

  Distinguished Service Award

  Outstanding Scientific Paper (Project) Award

  Outstanding Student Paper (Project) Award

 

(If nominating a group or organization complete the form with the information for the group leader or the individual who will be the group representative.  On a separate page include the name, address and e mail addresses of the other group members to be recognized.)

 

Nominee:

 

Name ___________________________________________________________

 

Address__________________________________________________________

                                    street/suite                                                        city/state/zip

 

Telephone___________________________fax __________________________

 

E mail___________________________________________________________

 

Nomination submitted by:

 

Name ___________________________________________________________

 

Title/Organization__________________________________________________

 

Address__________________________________________________________

                                    street/suite                                                        city/state/zip

 

Telephone____________________________fax_________________________

 

E mail___________________________________________________________

 

 

Date__________________Signed____________________________________

 

 

 

 


Distinguished Service Award

 

Year

Name

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

 

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

 

2003

2004

 

2005

2006

2007

2008

Burton Skuza, OD                           (Distinguished Career)

Henry Peters, OD, MA                    (Distinguished Achievement)

Norman Haffner, OD, PhD              (Distinguished Achievement)

Richard Hopping, OD                      (Distinguished Achievement)

Margaret J. Helton, RN, PHN, MA  (Distinguished Achievement)

Henry Hofstetter, OD, PhD             (Distinguished Achievement)

Thomas Pruett, OD                         (Distinguished Achievement)

Alfred S. Sommer, MD                    (Distinguished Achievement)

Kentucky Vision Project (Vision USA precursor)

        Special 10th Anniversary Service Award – Burton Skuza, OD

Lions Low Vision Aids Service Program (LOVE)

Harris L. Nussenblatt, OD, MPH, DrPH

Alan F. Schmierer, OD

Robert Newcomb, OD, MPH

Ian Berger, DrPH

Lester Caplan, OD

Leonard Werner, OD

William R. Baldwin, OD

Egon Werthamer, OD

Robert W. Massof, PhD

Edwin C. Marshall, OD, MSc, MPH

John Whitener, OD, MPH

           Mohammad Akhter, MD, MPH, Special Recognition Award

Stan  Yamane, OD

Dr. Lorraine Marchi

          Terrance Ingraham, Special Recognition Award

Siu G. Wong, OD, MPH

Camden Eye Center , Dr. Lawrence Ragone

Ohio ’s Aging Eye

R. Norman Bailey, OD, MPH

 


 

Outstanding Scientific Paper/Project

 

Year

Name

1981

1982

 

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

 

1990

1991

 

 

1992

 

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

 

1999

2000

2001

 

 

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

 

Framingham Eye Study

Robert Newcomb, OD, MPH and Jerry, OD, MPH; Co-Editors of Public Health and Community Optometry

Optometry Senior Citizens Screening Initiative

Vision Diagnostic and Treatment Program for Juvenile Offenders

Student Optometric Service to Haiti, PA College of Optometry

Salisa Williams, OD & Blane Snodgrass, OD

Helen Keller International (Global Conquest of Cataract Blindness)

--

Laura Bondy, OD & Dori Carlson, OD, “A Model Approach to Vision Care in Migrant and other Underserved Populations”

Myron Yanoff, MD and Charles Mullen,OD

Mordachi Soroka, MPA, PhD, “Comparison of Examination Fees & Availability of Routine Vision Care by Optometrists & Ophthalmologists”

Terry Dunkle, Weylin Eng, ED, George Weinstein, MD & Robert Yeager, Reader’s Digest – Home Eye Test

American Optometric Association, VISION USA

ABC’s of Eyecare, Better Vision Institute

National Eye Health Education Program/NEI

Descriptive Video Services of WGBH

Mordachi Soroka, MPA, PhD

INFOCUS, International Fostering of Ophthalmic Care  to Underserved Sectors

Special Olympics Opening Eyes Vision Health

Vision and Eye Health Objectives – Health People 2010

Jeffrey J. Walline, OD, MS et al, “The Contact Lens and Myopia Progression (CLAMP) Study: Design and Baseline Data: Optom Vis Sci 2001; 78:223-233.

West Virginia 2010 Health Objectives

--

--

--

Eye Care Outreach Program at Indiana University

Eye Care for Kids Foundation (Texas)

Xinzhi Zhang, MD, PhD; Jinan B. Saadine, MD, MPH; Paul P. Lee, MD, JD; David C. Grabowski, PhD;  Sanjat Kanjilal, MPH; Michael R. Duenas, OD, K. M. Venkat Narayan, MD, MSc. , “Eye Care in the US: Do We Deliver to High-Risk People Who Can Benefit Most from It?”,   Arch Ophthalmol.2007; 125:411-418.

 

 

 

 

 

Outstanding Student Paper (Project) Award

 

year

name

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

 

 

2002

 

 

 

2003

 

2004

2005

 

2006

 

 

 

2007

 

*/

2008

 

Alinda Perrine                                     (Outstanding Student)

Denise DeSylvia                                 (Outstanding Student)

Jerry Vincent                                       (Outstanding Student)

Gregory Pierangell                              (Outstanding Student)

Brian Hudson & Ken Tsutekai             (Outstanding Student)

--

Jean Paul Heldt                                   (Outstanding Student)

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Sarah J. Burns & Dawn M. Damori, Pacific University College of Optometry, “A Profile of Diabetic Patients at an Urban Primary Care Optometric Clinic”

Justin McMinn & Mathew Scott, Northeaster University College of Optometry, “A Comparison of Three Automated Instruments and Stereoscopic Optic Nerve Head Photos in the Diagnosis of Glaucoma”

Puent, Mitchell, Nichols, Ohio State University, “Adherence to Diabetic Standard of Care Guidelines”

Bharti Bathija, Kathy Gaynor, Josephine Mew, Angela Tardanico & Rita Vigh, SUNY College of Optometry, “Diabetes and Optometry Care”

Lynette Boothby, Jamie Vanderloon (optometry), Rachel Allen, Debbie Baughman (dental Hygiene), Lori King (nursing), Heather Christensen, Brooke Peterson (pharmacy), “ Collaborative Interprofessional  Diabetes Wellness Center

Armanda Jimenez, Meritza Frericks, Christine Giblin, Melanie Gonzales, Karen Li, Jessica Medina, New England College of Optometry, “Visual Impairment in Commercial Settings”

Lori Tai and Lily Mac, “Validity and Reliability of Web-Based Ocusource Visual Acuity Screener”

 

Public Health Materials Contest

NINETEENTH Annual APHA Public Health Materials Contest

 

The APHA Public Health Education and Health Promotion Section is soliciting your best health education, promotion and communication materials for the 19th annual competition. The contest provides a forum to showcase public health materials during the APHA Annual Meeting and recognizes professionals for their hard work.

 

All winners will be selected by panels of expert judges prior to the 137th APHA Annual Meeting in Philadelphia.  A session will be held at the Annual Meeting to recognize winners, during which one representative from the top materials selected in each category will give a presentation about their material.

 

Entries will be accepted in three categories; printed materials, electronic materials, and other materials.  Entries for the contest are due by March 27, 2009.  Please contact Kira McGroarty at kmcgroar@jhsph.edu for additional contest entry information.

Chair's Column

The Vision Care Section of the American Public Health Association wants to congratulate Dr. Mel Shipp on receiving the 2008 Executive Director's Citation at the 136th American Public Health Association (APHA) Annual Meeting in San Diego, CA.  This award recognizes Dr. Shipp’s extraordinary service to the APHA at a time when the organization was facing fiscal challenges.  Dr. Shipp served as treasurer of the APHA from 2001-2007 and as an Executive Board member from 1999-2007. Among his many contributions to the association, Shipp served as the founding chair of the Education Board and chair of the Finance and Audit Committee from 2001-2007. He has served as a Section councilor and governing councilor for the Vision Care Section and has held numerous other positions. Shipp "steadfastly led the fiscal process and was an absolutely stellar board member," said APHA Executive Director Georges Benjamin, MD, FACP, FACEP (E).  

 

The Vision Care Section also has awards that were presented at the Eye Opener breakfast.  These awards include:

In addition to the awards process, the 136th meeting of the APHA, the Vision Care Section successfully proposed a resolution titled Promoting Interprofessional Education (Policy Number: 2008).  This resolution was submitted by Dr. Elizabeth Hoppe, Dr. Joseph Pizzamenti and Dr. Sandra Block, to encourage  health care professional training programs “ to incorporate coursework and clinical training emphasizing cross-disciplinary and interprofessional interactions including the development of an interdisciplinary curriculum, …to evaluate the outcomes of curricular changes to assess differences in students’ and graduates’ communication skills, knowledge, attitudes, and understanding of the roles of different members of the interprofessional health care team, …to rigorously evaluate the impact of interprofessional education on professional practice and health care outcomes.” For a complete copy of the resolution, please go to http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1374. 

It is an exciting time we are embarking on.  There are many changes in Washington, DC with our new President.  He has many agendas that focus in the area of public health.  The APHA serves as an advocacy role for us and often asks for our support on important issues.  When you receive requests to contact your legislatures, please respond yourself and consider encouraging others to as well.  Many of the issues that will be highlighted in 2009 include:  increasing access to quality and affordable health care, ensuring that any bill on health care reform strengthens the nation’s health system, increasing funding for public health agencies and programs, asking for FDA regulation of tobacco products, focusing on the need to emphasize the public health implication of transportation policy and climate control.  Many of these issues are important to us not only an eye care providers but also as Americans.  We are one of the wealthiest nations and yet these problems currently are prevalent in our nation.

I would also like to encourage you to consider becoming more involved in the Vision Care Section of the APHA.  There are many opportunities to be active.  IThe Vision Care Section also welcome your efforts either through contributions to the scientific program, your participation at the annual meeting by advocating for the protection of our nations vision, or your involvement within the section.  There are many opportunities become involved.  Please consider becoming an active member of the section.  

I want to close with a reminder of the mission of the section. The mission of the Vision Care Section of the American Public Health Association is to promote health and well-being with emphasis on vision and eye health through interdisciplinary partnerships. The VCS serves as an advocate to ensure equality in, and access to, vision and eye health care, and to ensure inclusion of vision in public health policy.