ProPublica’s Post

Have you heard about B.C.'s new health legislation? It's sparking quite the debate among grocers and natural health retailers. Could this be a game-changer for the way we shop for our food and health products? Let's break down what this means for our choices and well-being. #NaturalHealth #BCLegislation

The best sunscreens are ones that get applied regularly...

Here at SGS Nutrasource, we both care for and are actively working in the women’s health space. Whether you’re looking to develop a women’s health ingredient or substantiate a claim for a women’s health product, we are here to assist you. To learn more about how our staff can help with your clinical & regulatory needs, contact us today. - #SGSNutrasource #WomensHealth #ClaimSubstantiation #RegulatoryStrategy

Our food is killing us but we've got medicine that will make us not want to eat as much of it as we currently are. Do we: a) change the quality of the food b) change the culture of how/where/when we eat the food c) have the majority of the population take the medicine Extra bonus question, if you choose (c) and a significant enough portion of the population take the medicine and stop eating as much of the food, does this make the food industry change for the better? Or do they double down on addictive ingredients and it's a race of food vs pharma on who can get you to eat more or less? Our healthcare debate needs to be a health debate asap.

Is the #EuropeanUnion truly prioritizing public #health by safeguarding its decision-making from undue #TobaccoIndustry influence, in line with WHO FCTC Article 5.3 principles? Explore the European Ombudsman's editorial for insights//bit.ly/3vNQn0e

Opening session of the High Level Conference on the Future EU Health Union with Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Social Affairs and Public Health and representatives of young people reflecting on the future of the Health agenda in the EU . Important points: * EU is a market and this can be a healthy market rather then one that creates diseases. * The challenge is to create an environment that enables people to have a healthy life style. * The big industries business model is to explore our human weaknesses -addictive substances like tobacco and alcohol. * Their model has a detrimental societal impact, in particular for those who are more vulnerable contributing to widening inequalities. * A concrete way forward towards prevention and health is needed. Labeling of alcoholic beverages and the Directive on Tobacco Products are long overdue. One of the workshops during the HL Conference will cover this topic.

Headlining this month's Health Policy Snapshot, including Health Policy Snippets; • Kamala Harris in the spotlight (and now Tim Walz): How do these moves re-shape the presidential campaign’s health policy debate? • Advocates of existing “Right to Try” law outline plans for potential expansion • BIOSECURE Act Update: Congress requests information on clinical trials conducted in China • 2024 Elections: What’s on tap and how will it impact access to innovative medicines? Schedule your presentation now Read the full report of health policy updates on the Affinity Strategies blog >>> https://lnkd.in/gwuMgx8P

The high cost of medicine poses a significant barrier to healthcare access worldwide, irrespective of socioeconomic status. Achieving #HealthForAll necessitates fair pricing for medicines, addressing accessibility disparities across income brackets. Pharmaceutical pricing involves a delicate balance between innovation incentives and equitable access. Companies invest heavily in research and development, aiming to recoup costs through pricing strategies, often resulting in unaffordable medications. The pharmaceutical supply chain's complexities, including mark-ups from manufacturers to retailers, contribute to inflated retail prices. This disproportionately affects low-income individuals, compromising their ability to afford even modest medication expenses and forcing trade-offs with basic needs. Middle-income earners, ineligible for healthcare assistance yet unable to afford out-of-pocket expenses, face similar challenges. High-income individuals, while more financially flexible, still grapple with rising healthcare costs, especially for chronic conditions or emergencies. Addressing pharmaceutical pricing demands transparency, competition promotion, and access to generic alternatives. Investments in cost-effective treatments and preventive measures can mitigate long-term healthcare expenses. Expanding healthcare coverage and social safety nets are critical for vulnerable populations. Prioritizing equitable medication access ensures #HealthForAll, minimizing financial barriers to healthcare. #MedicineAffordability #HealthEquity #PharmaPricing #AccessToMeds #HealthcareForAll #FairDrugPricing #MedicationAccess #AffordableHealthcare #GlobalHealth #HealthJustice

Our new strategy outlines how CHAI drives change across the entire health ecosystem—from global price negotiations to national health system planning to last-mile delivery—through the roles CHAI is uniquely positioned to play. Learn about how we work: https://ow.ly/MkxO50QrAn7 #TransformationalHealth #UniversalHealthCoverage #HealthcareForAll

I've been thinking a lot about the balances between regulation, knowledge uncertainty, innovation, and consumer choice (or lack therof; what's up, healthcare?). More questions than answers at this point, but hear me out... Let's use a theoretical scenario with food. What would happen if government fully regulated the food industry, and was able to reduce sugar intake by 50% through whatever means necessary - maybe by fully restricting consumer choice to some foods. Many would consider that a huge win. Do the teams that create those policies need to specify upfront about how long it would take for public health effects to manifest, including the quantitative extent to which they expect disease reduction would occur? Should they? In this scenario, let's say there was little attempt to clearly agree on a specified time-horizon or outcome magnitude. Let's zoom forward 5 years from the enactment of this reduction act. Disease burden stayed the same, maybe decreased, but still very high. Is this multilmillion dollar policy effort considered a successful money and time investment? How can long-term changes in such a complex thing (population disease rates) be clearly attributed to a restricted policy set at a single point in time? And even if successful with partially reducing rates, is it worth the cost of partial loss in freedom of choice? This is starting to sound a little like a transition toward the current state of healthcare, where consumers have lost choice and ownership. Not good. But maybe something to learn in the middle ground, especially if we are "healthier" for it. Same scenario, but maybe one disease got worse. Does the government admit its predictions were wrong, and have to pay the companies (& people) it hurt back their losses? What is the responsibility/accountability mechanism that maintains checks and balances across capital/corporate innovation, uncertainty in knowledge, consumer freedoms, and regulation?