Will a Coronavirus Vaccine Be the Answer?

The novel coronavirus has changed our lives. Just about everything we do is affected by mask-wearing and social distancing. The economy has been reeling, although you wouldn’t know it by looking at the stock market. There have been more than 6 million cases in the US and closing in on 200,000 deaths so far. Thankfully, scientific knowledge around coronavirus is expanding at an unprecedented pace. Everyone is looking for a silver bullet against coronavirus. Many hope a vaccine will be that bullet.

Development of a coronavirus vaccine is an urgent priority of the federal government. Since its inception in May, Operation Warp Speed – the collaborative effort between the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and pharmaceutical companies to develop and produce hundreds of millions of doses of coronavirus vaccines – has helped identify well over one hundred vaccine candidates and implement dozens of trials. Nine vaccines are in large scale phase 3 trials. Projections of when a vaccine will be available have ranged from October (per President Trump in the early days of the vaccine development) to the end of 2020 or, more likely, early 2021, according to recent comments by Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease. Dr. Fauci seriously doubts we will have to rely on an international vaccine (think Russia or China), having openly criticized the Russian President Vladimir Putin-promoted effort as “bogus”.

Obviously, the sooner we have a vaccine, the better. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is calling on states to have vaccine distribution sites fully operational by November 1, a gargantuan task. That does not mean a vaccine will be delivered on November 1. We need to temper our expectations of what will happen – and how quickly – once a vaccine becomes available.

The goal of any vaccination campaign is “herd” (community) immunity, where a sufficient proportion of a population is immune to make disease spread from person to person unlikely. In general, 60% or more of a community or population needs to have either had a particular infectious disease or be vaccinated against it in order to provide sufficient community immunity. Sounds easy enough.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), only 45.3% of adults got a flu vaccination for the 2018-2019 season, ranging from a low of 33.9% in Nevada to only 56.3% in Rhode Island. Twenty percent of Americans already say they will refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine, and with another 31 percent unsure, reaching herd immunity could be that much more difficult. On a cautiously optimistic note, there is some speculation that the herd immunity level with the COVID-19 coronavirus might be as low as 43%. That shouldn’t make us think twice about getting vaccinated, however, especially when that vaccine will be effectively free and, if all goes as promised, readily available. The more the merrier, when it comes to people getting vaccinated.

I do worry how long it will take to get 300 million doses of a vaccine delivered and administered in our communities. In the 2009 H1N1 pandemic (caused by a more seasonal flu virus than the novel coronavirus), vaccine doses were first distributed to state and local health departments and then further out to mass clinics, employers, schools, hospitals, pharmacies, and doctor’s offices. Even so, only about a quarter of all Americans got vaccinated before the pandemic played out. The coronavirus vaccination effort will have to be larger and faster, and this pandemic is not expected to fizzle like a flu season does. (We already know that optimistic predictions of a summer lull did not happen.) All that is to say, it may be awhile before we reach herd immunity.

There are other logistical uncertainties as well. Will the vaccine require cold storage? (Probably.) Will a single dose be effective? (Probably not.) How will distribution and dosing be prioritized? (Health care workers? Elderly? Racial disparities?) With so many vaccines in development, “the first” vaccine may not be “the best” vaccine for the long run. I would still take it… and whatever follows as well, if that is what is recommended by the medical experts.

Politics continues to tussle with Science, most recently in the “breakthrough” announced from the White House regarding convalescent plasma as a COVID-19 treatment. FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn sheepishly had to backtrack misleading comments made about convalescent plasma therapy while defending against Trump’s accusations that the “deep state” at the FDA was making it hard for drug companies to test coronavirus treatments. Thankfully, Politics is funding Science to an incredible extent during this pandemic. I suppose in any dance one partner may step on the other’s toes on occasion. As long as the dance continues, we have hope.

While we wait on a coronavirus vaccine, we should stay current with other vaccinations and definitely get the flu shot this fall. There is some speculation that vaccinations might help “train” or boost our overall immune system. Who knows? And we need to continue to slow the spread of coronavirus by wearing masks (mouth AND nose, please), washing our hands, and social distancing. Remember, this is a community effort.

One final thought. When a coronavirus vaccine does become available – one that is determined to be safe and effective – I would like to see President Trump, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and other major political and scientific leaders hold a news conference and all get vaccinated together on live television. Lead by bipartisan example! What better way to reassure the public and encourage all of us to follow suit. A vaccine may or may not be a silver bullet, but I am hopeful one (or more) will be a great tool in the fight. 

Pandemics and Personal Responsibility

We have been dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic for many months now. What an emotional roller coaster ride it has been. Early thoughts of “flattening the curve” have not panned out in Texas. In Angelina County, there has been a steady rise in cases since early April.  From a healthcare standpoint, much has been written of the way the virus – as if it had a mind of its own – discriminates against minority populations. Of course, the virus itself is colorblind. However, many of the social and economic factors that affect health are not.

The Economist, in a column titled Black America in peril , quotes WEB DuBois, an African American sociologist, who said that the “most difficult social problem in the matter of Negro health” was that so few white Americans were bothered by it. He wrote that in 1899. This “indifference” to human suffering continues today and is perpetuated by a broken procedure-oriented, insurance-driven system of healthcare that is vastly too expensive for everyone, not just those without insurance. The answer is not so simplistic as providing insurance coverage for everyone (although expanding Medicaid coverage is Texas would have significant positive health and economic benefits for the state).

In the United States, these health inequities extend beyond racial classification. The attainment and maintenance of health is a multifactorial and heavily socioeconomic phenomenon.  Enter COVID-19, the illness caused by the novel coronavirus. Once again, we see higher death rates in vulnerable populations. In the middle of a pandemic, we are not going to solve systemic inequities in healthcare.

But that does not mean we are helpless.

Ironically, the most effective prevention intervention – wearing masks – has become one of the most political, with some rights-obsessed conservatives (who presumably wear seatbelts in their cars) selfishly preferring to risk harming others rather than donning a minimally irritating face covering. Why is it that those shouting “personal rights and responsibility” from the rooftops are the ones rejecting the singularly individual action that can save lives?

In a recent interview, Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health and former head of the Human Genome Project (and, incidentally, a committed Christian, which should be of some comfort to those who are inclined to conflate religious and political viewpoints), was asked, “As someone who is both an acclaimed scientist and a public Christian, what’s your perspective on the pandemic as a cultural issue?” His reply is both compassionate and pragmatic. “Your chance of spreading the coronavirus to a vulnerable person has nothing to do with what culture you come from or what political party you belong to. Your responsibility is to try to prevent that from happening to vulnerable people around you. But our country’s polarization is so extreme that it even seems to extend into a place like this — where it absolutely doesn’t belong. That is really troubling because it’s putting people at risk who shouldn’t be.” 

In times of great social and political upheaval, we can become despondent and feel there is nothing we as individuals can do to fix anything. (Frankly, we put too much hope in elections.) It just so happens that in the middle of this coronavirus pandemic it is exactly individual action that is going to make all the difference. Whatever your personal ethical or religious motivation, we can all follow the Golden Rule. We can follow the command of Jesus – “Love your neighbor as yourself.”  – who undoubtedly would be wearing a mask right now. Go and do likewise. Do it for the least of these. Wear your masks. Save lives.

End-of-Life Implications of the Coronavirus Pandemic

We are early in this coronavirus game of social distancing and hand washing. We haven’t quite become weary of it. We joke about it. And yet, I am starting to see – among my friends – some very real concern about our elder parents and grandparents. But we don’t allow ourselves to linger on those thoughts much. We should.

The United States has been accused of being late to respond to the coronavirus pandemic, late to test our US population compared to other countries (South Korea, for example), and “doomed” in our response. Even so, we are just beginning the initial rise of the now well-known bell curve of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Known cases are doubling every day, it seems. Deaths are increasing as well.

As a cancer physician with additional hospice and palliative medicine (end-of-life care) certification, I view the coronavirus pandemic with increasingly darkened lenses. Coronavirus is a new and immediate threat to life, and we are not ready for what that means. If we don’t succeed in slowing the spread of coronavirus and suppressing new cases – now widely known as flattening the curve – 2.2 million people in the US could die. We are not talking openly – publicly –about how we are going to handle this massive number of deaths with COVID-19.

If the coronavirus epidemic is as bad as some predict it will be, discussions about end-of-life care with this disease will soon become front and center. There may not be enough ventilators for everyone who “needs” ventilator support. Italy has been forced to triage sick coronavirus patients based on age, given that the death rate among the elderly is so high. Italian doctors have admitted that there were simply too many patients for each one of them to receive adequate care. They describe a “tsunami” of patients and a more than 7% death rate (though researchers have lowered the calculated death rate in Wuhan, where the pandemic started, to 1.4%). Preliminary outcomes of patients with COVID-19 in the US show death is highest in persons aged ≥85, ranging from 10% to 27%, followed by 3% to 11% among persons aged 65–84 years.

The Italian society of anesthesiologists issued fifteen recommendations of ethical and medical criteria to consider if ICU beds are exhausted, saying doctors may have to adopt more wartime triage criteria of gauging who has the best chance of survival versus “first come, first served.” Those who are chronically ill with pre-existing lung disease, even if they survive a serious coronavirus infection, are likely to be left with even further reduced lung function and poorer quality of life.

Unlike a localized disaster – most memorably Hurricane Katrina, in New Orleans in 2005, where healthcare decision-making received intense scrutiny and prompted legal action – we are experiencing a global, acute healthcare emergency that may require historic moral and ethical decisions that impact who lives and who dies. We will be rationing healthcare on the fly. Are we ready for that? As family members? As a community? As a nation? Are our hospices ready for the number of patients needing immediate, short-duration, and contagion-related end-of-life care?
Perhaps the most terrifying aspect of the coronavirus epidemic in countries where death has become frighteningly common is the loneliness of the death. Hospitals in the US are already limiting or even forbidding visitors. In Italy, seriously ill coronavirus patients are isolated from family and often die alone. Families are not allowed to have a proper burial, and not just due to restrictions on gathering – morgues have an enormous backlog to work through. That is certainly not what we would call a “good death” and not what those of us in the hospice care field want for any patient.

Trump has labeled himself a wartime president, declaring we are at war with an invisible enemy. "Now it's our time. We must sacrifice together, because we are all in this together, and we will come through together," he said. What is not stated – and what I am afraid will happen – is the wartime sacrifice analogy will extend to real lives lost. In an ironic twist of fate, it very well may be that the remnants of the Greatest Generation are once again on the front lines. Even down to the Baby Boomers, our nation’s elders will bear the brunt of the coronavirus disease, certainly, but likely the financial catastrophe surrounding the pandemic as well. (I wonder if the economic collapse will kill as many or more people than coronavirus does.)

The time is now to have discussions with our older/elderly parents and grandparents about the very real risk of serious illness and death from COVID-19. Wills need to be written and advance directives and durable powers of attorney completed now – before our loved ones hit the hospitals. This is not morbid; it is both pragmatic and necessary. If we emerge from this battle relatively unscathed, we are no worse off for having had the discussions and done the planning. Patients and families should be driving end-of-life care decisions. We owe it to our hospitals and healthcare workers not to overburden the system with trying to care for those who neither want nor would benefit from aggressive measures.

An Accurate Census – Our Health Depends on It!

When I was a skinny, naïve teenager, I worked the summer of 1980 for the US Census Bureau going door to door, pencil in hand, filling out census forms. Or rather, I went trailer park to trailer park in the outskirts of Odessa, Texas, where I was assigned to work. Do you know how many pit bulls and Doberman pinschers live under the steps of trailer houses in West Texas? I do. Fortunately, that was not one of the census questions.

The US Census counts each resident of the country, where they live on April 1, every ten years ending in zero. The count is mandated by the Constitution to determine how to apportion the House of Representatives among the states.  The US has counted its population every ten years since 1790. Households will be able to respond to the 2020 Census online, over the phone, or through a paper questionnaire. Results are anonymous and confidential; answers cannot be used against you by any government agency or court.

My appreciation for the US Census has grown tremendously since my days walking trailer parks. Far beyond being a simple head count, an incredible $1.5 trillion in federal dollars are distributed according to census counts. Myriad local and state governments, businesses, and community groups rely on US Census data to determine needs, guide investments, provide services, and lobby for state and federal funding.  If the count isn’t accurate, the distribution of funds isn’t fair. We have one shot every ten years to get it right.
Healthcare in particular has much at stake if the US Census does not get accurate information. As I love to mention, the healthcare sector drives our local economy. The State of Texas cannot ignore the healthcare sector either. Elena Marks, president and CEO of the Episcopal Health Foundation, states, “No sector is as dependent within the state budget in drawing down federal funds than the health sector, and those funds are based on population that's determined by the Census. Health clearly stands the most to gain, and the most to lose if there's an undercount.”  In fact, experts estimate that a 1% undercount in the Census could cost Texans about $280 million per year for health programs alone. Current forecasts predict anywhere from a 4%-8% undercount in Texas.

From political representation to federal funding for clinics, Medicaid, the children's health insurance program and much more, a complete and accurate Census count is crucial for community health – especially for low-income and vulnerable populations like many in deep East Texas.  The $1.5 trillion in federal money guided by census data helps fund the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicaid, Medicare, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and community health centers funded through the Health Resources and Services Administration Health Center Program. Indivar Dutta-Gupta, co-executive director of the Center on Poverty and Inequality at Georgetown Law, notes that the groups that tend to be undercounted at the highest rate, unsurprisingly, are also the ones that would probably most benefit from greater access to and provision of health care and coverage.

The Census is also fundamental for population health data, including calculation of death rates, birth rates, and fertility rates.  A recent journal article titled Census 2020—A Preventable Public Health Catastrophe  points out that population counts provide denominators used to derive disease prevalence and rates. Inaccurate counts limit our ability to understand and track disease over time. If we cannot accurately stratify our populations by social factors such as education and race/ethnicity, we cannot assess their relationships to health.  Rural populations with spotty Internet connectivity are also likely to be undercounted.  Simply put, if we can’t measure social disparities in health, we are hindered in working to reduce them. Given our history of hurricanes, we need to understand that a flawed Census will compromise efforts to track and effectively manage natural disasters and emergent public health threats (coronavirus?), which require geographically focused provision of food, water, and shelter.

Lately, it seems as if politics gets in the way of everything. We must understand that federal dollars follow people. More people counted equals more funding coming our way. Whether or not we like with the ways those dollars are raised or spent, we should all agree that we deserve our fair share of whatever dollars are distributed. An accurate US Census is something we should all be able to count on and get behind!

How to Lose Weight and Improve Health

Weight loss is always high on most people’s New Year’s resolution list. For something that is desired by so many of us, it is surprising how difficult it is to achieve and how controversial or ineffective the proposed methods are. Half of all Americans ages 20 and over say they've attempted to lose weight in the past year.  Exercising more and eating less are the two top strategies people use to try to lose weight. Yet so often we fail.

Our focus needs to shift to healthy living as opposed to weight loss alone. No single diet can be recommended for everyone, because – and you knew this already – what works for one person may not work for another.  Of all the individual diet programs out there, Weight Watchers (now called WW, to move the emphasis away from weight loss) seems to be more effective than others, at least according to US News & World Reports.  Noom is a more recent (and expensive) addition to the behavioral change and app-integrated weight loss arena. What these programs recognize is that weight loss is more than just counting calories (or, as is the case in the WW system, points). Weight loss requires behavioral change, community, and a lifestyle of eating healthier and moving more.

Though we don’t know enough about the genetics involved in weight loss and weight gain, the observation that some people have to work harder than others to stay thin or lose weight appears to be supported by scientific data. Apart from genetics, some people’s intestines are 50% longer than others. (Shorter guts absorb fewer calories.) Differences in gut microbiomes can alter how people process food.  Cooking increases digestion of food and absorption of calories.

All of this means that just counting calories is not the answer to weight loss. The old adage calories in, calories out is simply false. That’s because a calorie is not a calorie. If that were the case, a diet of donuts alone would be fine. But it turns out the rate your body absorbs calories may be as important as the amount of calories you take in. In other words, that sugary donut hits our bloodstream far faster than calories from more complex carbohydrates or from fat and protein.  And, those quickly absorbed sugars are far more likely to create body fat – and make you paradoxically hungrier in the process.

For years, the culprit of the obesity epidemic was thought to be dietary fat. Low-fat, high-carb diets were all the rage. Only recently has it come to light that sugar companies secretly funded studies designed to blame fat for making us fat. But low-fat, high-carb diets didn’t work; we kept getting fatter. For an entire polemic on the subject, check out The Case Against Sugar by Gary Taubes. It is enough to scare anyone off sugar. That is not to say that we know for certain the extent to which sugar is responsible for the obesity epidemic. Gina Kolata, writing in the New York Times, notes that a number of societal factors may have contributed to the obesity epidemic, from growing portion sizes, the popularity of restaurants and fast food, snacking, the cultural acceptance of obesity, and even the decline in smoking.  The science is not settled.

That’s not to say that you shouldn’t watch what you eat. Keeping a food diary can help you understand what and how much you are eating and the types of calories you are consuming. A study of nearly 1,700 participants showed the best predictors of weight loss were how frequently food diaries were kept and how many support sessions the participants attended. Those who kept daily food records lost twice as much weight as those who kept no records.  I wrote about my so-called Bar Code Diet many years ago and that if I couldn't scan it or enter it into my phone, I didn't put it in my mouth.  That – along with regular exercise with a group of friends, who kept me accountable – did help me lose weight and keep it off.

What can you do realistically on your own and without added expense?

1. Keep a food diary. You may not be aware of just what you consume in a given day. For the technologically savvy, phone apps like MyFitnessPal and Lose It! can be helpful. Remember, some days you may have more success than others. Just keep going.
2. Avoid high fructose corn syrup and sugary drinks, and cut your daily sugar intake significantly.  Having an occasional celebratory dessert is fine. But make it a rare and portion-controlled treat, if for no other reason than sugary foods are seductive and lead to overeating.
3. Focus on overall healthy behaviors, eating fewer processed foods, and increasing physical activity as opposed to weight loss per se. That includes avoiding smoking and excess alcohol intake as well as taking advantage of a host of other preventive, screening, and early detection programs. Weight is just a number; health is a lifestyle.
4. Be a part of a community or small group. Accountability – both for diet and exercise – is a great motivator and reinforcer. Fat shaming doesn’t work; encouragement and support does.

Emphasizing physical activity and healthy behaviors at all ages is key to reducing morbidity and improving health outcomes in communities. Far from ignoring obesity, when we emphasize a lifestyle that includes awareness and adjustment of eating habits and sets exercise goals (such as increasing walking speed, strength gains, etc.), our overall health – and the health of our community – will improve. And you know what? We will lose weight along the way.

Money, Insurance, and Health: An Unfair Relationship

Money doesn't buy happiness, or so they say. But money can buy better health. Add one more difference between the haves and the have nots.

There are many determinants of health. Some behaviors are more under our individual control than others. The Big Three, as I like to call them – smoking, diet, and exercise – would, at first glance, seem to be entirely personal choices. That would be untrue.

Social and economic factors are a major determinant of health. These factors include education level, employment, income, family and social support, and community safety. Each of these factors is correlated with financial well-being. In fact, these social and economic factors as a whole are more important even than individual health behaviors, such as tobacco use, diet and exercise, alcohol and drug use, and sexual activity, since health behaviors also correlate strongly with educational level, employment, income, etc. In other words, we cannot address health behaviors in isolation; we must simultaneously address education, jobs, social services, and community safety if we are to improve health.

Another significant determinant of health – the one that gets the most national attention – is access to and quality of healthcare. In the United States, that access is governed primarily by insurance coverage. Every country rations healthcare; in the United States, we just happen to ration it by separating the insured from the uninsured, and that is very much along economic lines. A privileged few are wealthy enough to be able to pay out of pocket for whatever care they need, but they rarely need to. They have insurance. Good insurance. They can afford to pay their deductible, however high it may be. The working poor, however, have some income but little or no savings and often no health insurance coverage at all. They are the ones who get hit with the entire, undiscounted bill for their care. Bankruptcy is an all-too-common result.

Our healthcare system does make some patchwork provision for the truly indigent, but no one should kid themselves that charity care is in any way equivalent – either in breadth of coverage or ease of use – to what we want for ourselves. Even those with insurance are burdened with astronomical deductibles and copays that most simply can’t afford. These persistent financial burdens can force patients to choose less expensive procedures or to go without care altogether.

And then there is Obamacare.

Implementation of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, started in 2010, when 16% of the US population – more than 40 million people – were uninsured. Healthcare provided since the advent of Obamacare is, as promised, both more affordable and more available. The percentage of people without health insurance has been cut in half.

The dirty little secret is that many healthcare providers don’t take Obamacare plans, funneling patients into inadequate primary care networks and forcing them to drive long distances for more specialized care. In other words, even under Obamacare we continue to ration care with money-related barriers. No question, Obamacare is far from perfect, but it is still better than nothing.

Ray Perryman, considered by many to be the Texas economist par excellence, issued a report in April 2019 titled Economic Benefits of Expanding Health Insurance Coverage in Texas. In this report, Dr. Perryman states, "Health care needs do not simply go away because individuals do not have insurance coverage. Instead, medical issues tend to escalate and lead to higher costs and worse outcomes. Texas would gain over $110 billion in new Federal health spending during the first 10 years." For the callous who are only interested in the economic benefit accrued to the state’s coffers, this report delivers that in spades.

Guess what, though? According to the Perryman Group report, expanding health insurance coverage in Texas also would result in enhanced “health and wellbeing of individuals directly affected by receiving coverage” as well as “reductions in the numbers of uninsured, fewer emergency room visits, improved health outcomes, enhanced employment and productivity, and other desirable developments.” That is a win-win, my friends.

There has been little political appetite to expanding coverage in Texas for fear of “socialized medicine” and an ever-more-intrusive Federal Government. I get it. We can have differences of opinion about whether and how much healthcare is a “right”, how much “responsibility” is required along the way, and the role of government in healthcare. But, leveraging $9.00 in federal resources for every $1.00 in state funding that results in improved health and return on investment is a bet I would make any day of the week.

Our individual and community health depends on many things. Money – or lack thereof – is the most insidious factor. Improving the health of an entire county, as measured by the Robert Wood Johnson County Health Rankings, will require a concerted effort on both the public and private sector fronts and with both large and small scale efforts. Expanding health insurance coverage in Texas via the Affordable Care Act would be an impactful place to start.

Dental Health is Community Health

We need to return to adding fluoride to our water supply.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that fluoridation of community water supplies is one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century in the United States. It ranks up there with vaccinations and control of infectious diseases. According to the CDC, fluoridation of drinking water, which began in 1945 and now reaches three out of four Americans, is both safe and inexpensive. The benefit? Reductions in tooth decay (40%-70% in children) and of tooth loss in adults (40%-60%).

Fluoridation of the water supply is race-blind and socioeconomic status-blind. It benefits children and adults regardless of access to dental care. According to dental association reports, on an individual basis, the lifetime cost of fluoridation is less than the cost of one dental filling. For communities, every $1 invested in water fluoridation saves $38 in dental treatment costs. This is a straightforward example of the benefit of public health.

The Texas Department of State Health Services runs the Texas Fluoridation Program (TFP) specifically to improve the health of Texans by preventing tooth decay through community water fluoridation. TFP assists public water systems in the engineering design, installation, and maintenance of water fluoridation systems; monitors the adjusted fluoride level in the drinking water; and maintains the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) fluoridation database for the State of Texas. The Texas DSHS notes that community water fluoridation is recommended by nearly all public health, medical, and dental organizations. The US Department of Health and Human Services’ Community Preventive Services Task Force completed its most recent review of community water fluoridation in April 2013; it recommended water fluoridation based on strong evidence of effectiveness in reducing tooth decay across population groups.

This is also an equity issue. A dental public health publication concluded that water fluoridation is the most effective and practical method for reducing the gap in decay rates between low-income and upper-income Americans. The Hispanic Dental Association has called fluoridation a valuable tool in the reduction of oral health disparities. Another public health paper noted that school performance is indirectly affected by fluoridation because children with poor dental health are nearly three times more likely to miss school and are four times more likely to earn lower grades.

Most water has some fluoride, but usually not enough to prevent cavities. The City of Lufkin 2017 Annual Water Quality Report – the most recent available online – states the fluoride level at the time was 0.722 ppm. The City of Lufkin website, on their FAQ page, continues to state that they add fluoride “at a constant concentration of 1 part per million gallons” and that it is added “as a deterrent to tooth decay.” But according to the CDC, the City of Lufkin’s water system, which supplies a population of more than 42,000 (not just Lufkin, mind you!), now has a fluoride concentration of 0.3, below what is recommended.

I confirmed with our City Manager, Keith Wright, that the City of Lufkin stopped fluoridating water last year. The rationale was that people get fluoride in many ways now, and it seemed unnecessary. In addition, there was concern about conflicting reports of health effects.

Chronic fluoride toxicity is usually caused by excessive fluoride concentrations in drinking water or the use of fluoride supplements. With controlled, measured fluoridation, there is minimal risk with significant public health benefit. A New England Journal of Medicine Journal Watch commentary noted that there may even be an added benefit for older women by increasing bone mineral density with less risk of hip fracture. As for fluoride from other sources, I love the way the Texas Oral Health Coalition, Inc. puts it: “Community water fluoridation and brushing with fluoride toothpaste complement each other, like seat belts and air bags in automobiles. Both work individually, but together they provide even better protection.”

The US Public Health Service’s recommendation for the optimal level of fluoride in community water systems is a ratio of fluoride to water calibrated at 0.7 parts per million. They reached this number after years of scientifically rigorous analysis of the amount of fluoride people receive from all sources, not just fluoridation of the water supply.

What about cost? The Texas Department of State Health Services Fluoridation Program estimates the cost of fluoride additive at $4011/year to the city, based on Lufkin’s average production rate and current average fluorosilicic acid price at $2.00/gallon. I don’t know exactly how accurate those numbers are, but it is obvious we are not talking a lot of money here.

Bottom line? Lufkin needs to return to fluoridating our water supply. And the Texas legislature should consider requiring municipalities to maintain recommended fluoride levels in municipal water supplies. After all, dental health is part of public and community health.