SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
Counties with more trees and shrubs spend less on Medicare
A new study finds that Medicare costs tend to be lower in counties with more forests and shrublands than in counties dominated by other types of land cover. The relationship persists even when accounting for economic, geographic or other factors that might independently influence health care costs, researchers report.
The analysis included county-level health and environmental data from 3,086 of the 3,103 counties in the continental U.S.
Urban and rural counties with the lowest socioeconomic status appeared to benefit the most from increases in forests and shrubs, said University of Illinois graduate student Douglas A. Becker, who led the new research with Matt Browning, a professor of recreation, sport and tourism at the U. of I.
"At first, I was surprised by this," Becker said. "But then it occurred to me that low-income communities are getting the biggest bang for their buck because they probably have the most to gain."
The findings, reported in the journal Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, are observational and do not prove that having more trees and shrubs directly lowers health care costs, Becker said. But the study adds to a growing body of evidence linking green space -- in particular, forested areas -- to better health outcomes for those living nearby.
"Previous studies have looked at any health outcomes people think might be linked to nature: depression, cardiovascular disease, physical activity levels, even recovery from surgery," Becker said.
Several studies report no association between access to green space and health, he said.
"But there is also a lot of work -- including experimental work, which we consider to be the strongest -- showing a link between exposure to green space and beneficial health effects," Becker said.
Douglas A. Becker, Matthew H.E.M. Browning, Ming Kuo, Stephen K. Van Den Eeden. Is green land cover associated with less health care spending? Promising findings from county-level Medicare spending in the continental United States. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2019; 41: 39 DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2019.02.012
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 05 2019, @04:12AM (7 children)
This might be a case of putting the cart before the horse. Are these counties in overall better health specifically because of the green spaces, or does the presence of said spaces act as a proxy for higher wealth in general, which is correlated with better health outcomes?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @04:22AM
Based on past studies showing no link and how this study tried to differentiate itself, I wouldn't be surprised if the real correlation isn't something related to air quality. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason why forested areas reduce Medicare expenses is because the areas large enough to have forests and those with more trees have better air.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @04:26AM (1 child)
Middle-of-nowhere "green land cover" flyover regions with 57 people per square mile pay less on Medicare than urban centers with 28000 people per square mile. This got them a published paper?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by coolgopher on Friday April 05 2019, @07:21AM
Per capita.
Of course, a sample size of 57 isn't great...
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday April 05 2019, @04:46AM
In extreme, bush-only counties will have perfect a perfect zero Medicare cost: nobody lives there, no places to claim Medicare costs... totally healthy, right? Ima gonna relocate in Cravens Peak Reserve [google.com] - sorry no street (to) view, but it's open 24/7.
Point: put the horses and the cart in any order you want, there'll be places/times that don't fit your assumptions one way or another.
Just remember to always use your head in such cases... fuck, another exception... just stop short from driving nails with it (grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @05:18PM
It might help if you read beyond the fucking headline. It says right there in the beginning paragraph of TFS: "The relationship persists even when accounting for economic, geographic or other factors that might independently influence health care costs, researchers report." Do try to keep up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @06:09PM
Nope. It's the first thing they looked into. The rich Arab deserts still had high expenditure while the poor ex-soviet and Asian barely developed forests had low expenditure.
They also eliminated population density, growth, average rain fall, length of shore lines if at all and ratio to area, mining (type and quantity), transportation (type and quantity), ethnicity, power sources (coal vs. oil vs. something cleaner), climate...
One intermediate I can think that wasn't argued is the real-estate economy: It could be said that most well-to-dos in forested countries spend most of their political capital making sure forests aren't zoned for housing and industry to secure their investments from losing value over an increased supply of land. Combined with environmentalists and left-wingers, this creates a political faction that opposes the industrialists that can then push for tougher regulations on both industry and on health providers.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Friday April 05 2019, @08:37PM
There needs to be a -1 "I didn't read the summary" mod. Literally in the second sentence it says "The relationship persists even when accounting for economic, geographic or other factors that might independently influence health care costs, researchers report." and a few sentences later "Urban and rural counties with the lowest socioeconomic status appeared to benefit the most from increases in forests and shrubs". Yet this post is modded +5 Interesting.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!