As American Public Health Association president, I’ve traveled across the nation to visit state public health associations and educational institutions—such as Boise State University, Idaho State University, and the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston—and connect with community leaders and students to share my three steps of playing, reading, and voting for a healthier nation.
PLAY
I call on all of us, particularly those who have worked tirelessly in public health during the COVID-19 pandemic, to take a moment each day to play. This is crucial to our mental and physical health and will allow us to continue to do the much-needed good work. Although busy with our work, families, and communities, don’t forget to take some time for yourself to reflect, recharge, relax, and find moments of joy.
These can be solo or shared experiences such as taking a walk, doing a puzzle, knitting, or playing a board or online game. My family is big into card and board games! Every day I’m thankful for the opportunity to walk my dogs, Oswald and Dolly, at least a few times a day. Perhaps the greatest lesson that I’ve learned from them is to be sure to take time outside and “smell the roses.” They stop a lot to smell pretty much everything, but it’s made a world of difference in my life.
READ
With so much misinformation, disinformation, and censorship and so many book-banning efforts, I want us to get back to more reading, as this is critical for combating misinformation. This reading can be active. We can collaborate and partner with other organizations to share our ideas for healthier communities through op-eds and letters to the editors in local news outlets; local journalism is important and a great community connector. Plus, reading can be fun and a good way to “play” for health too. You can often find me listening to an audiobook while out for a walk with my dogs, when I’m not reading AJPH of course. And sometimes, of course, I’m listening to AJPH podcasts, too (shameless plug)!
VOTE
It’s critical that all eligible voters vote, especially in local and state elections. Every day our local and state governments make important decisions that affect our community health. I believe that to truly make impactful change in the public health and well-being of communities across our nation, participation in local elections is key.
We need to focus on engaging and informing local voters to elect candidates who prioritize public health. Our elected officials need to understand how they play a critical public health role in the laws that they enact. We need them to understand that affordable and safe housing is public health, that access to safe and reliable transportation is public health, and that we don’t have a moment to waste on addressing climate change.
Research shows that the majority of our nation supports addressing climate change, the right to abortion, and stronger gun control. Research also shows that many of our state and federal elected officials do not hold these majority views, nor do they govern as most of the nation wants. With this glaring disconnect, I believe that if all eligible voters voted, it would make a world of difference toward making this a healthier and more inclusive world. Again, local elections matter.
With each affiliate visit (to Alaska, New Hampshire, and many places in between), I am heartened to hear the many ways that public health practitioners are sharing their health information with their policymakers and are doing their level best to inform elected officials of the importance of public health for their constituents.
I was thrilled to meet Aditi Bussells, an at-large councilwoman representing Columbia, South Carolina, and to hear her speak at the South Carolina Public Health Association’s annual conference about how she brings her education and background in public health to her policymaking. How incredible would it be if every policymaker at every level of government had a grounding in public health?
Perhaps as you read this, you will consider running for office, too! Maybe I need to revise my call to action? “Play, read, and vote (and possibly run) for health.”
Finally, as I head into being immediate past president, know that my call to play, read, and vote for health does not end here. It’s only just beginning. We need to stay fierce and focused on our mission to create a healthier, more inclusive, and kinder world. Bring this call to play, read, and vote for health to every corner of our precious planet—we don’t have a moment to lose.
50. Years Ago
Desegregating Health Statistics
The separation of American health statistics into basic categories of white and nonwhite is a reflection of our heritage of racial segregation…. The white–nonwhite dichotomy is indefensible on scientific grounds, since the groups included in the nonwhite category have widely divergent mortality rates…. [S]ome of these groups have lower death rates than whites, while others have higher rates. Why then are they lumped together? The confusion is further compounded by the official designation, within the nonwhite group, of Chinese and Japanese as separate races, a classification which is difficult to comprehend since these are clearly not races but nationalities. The designation of Mexicans as nonwhites in 1932 through 1934 and the change from “race” in the 1900-1940 volume on Vital Statistics Rates in the United States to “color” in the 1940–1960 volume, indicate that the designations and categories are shifting and unstable, reflecting political pressures instead of scientific procedures.
From AJPH, June 1973, p. 478
61. Years Ago
Social Implications Of Race-Color Designations
In the history of vital statistics and public health research, race has been a meaningful category. The differentials between whites and nonwhites in health status and in death rates at birth have been analyzed and the findings employed to develop programs for the improvement of life chances…. In view of the advantages of including racial designation as an item on vital records, … it is not easy to understand the movement to have this practice discontinued in many geographic areas…. [T]he opposition’s argument … “is that the inclusion of racial designations on personal records violates personal privacy and/or individual rights and may lead to preferential treatment or discriminatory action…. The real danger is in having no statistics, rather than in having them as a basis of evaluation. Rumors and prejudice are likely to thrive in those areas which cannot be evaluated. In this connection it can be stated categorically that reliable statistics by race in those areas where discrimination and civil rights violations are alleged afford the minority group the best protection it can hope to have.”
From AJPH, April 1962, pp. 671–674.
Biography
