CECOSIDA in Haiti

As part of the Kaiser Family Foundation’s broader work in the Caribbean to mobilize media in response to AIDS, the foundation has been working for the past two years with CECOSIDA, a Haitian non-governmental organization based in Port-au-Prince. Kaiser works closely with the staff at CECOSIDA to develop a Creole version of the LIVE UP media campaign — ANNVIV — with local programming across more than 20 Haitian radio and television stations. The project is supported through partnerships with the Ford Foundation and Elton John AIDS Foundation.

Over the past week, Kaiser has been in close communication with CECOSIDA’s Executive Director, Roosevelt Jean-Francois, who is based in Florida but traveled to the island following the earthquake, and are very glad to report that the entire CECOSIDA team is safe, although several staff members have lost family and close friends. CECOSIDA’s building is still standing but awaiting a structural assessment before it can be re-entered. Many of the media partners in Port-au-Prince that support ANNVIV are not operating including the lead telecom partner, Digicel. TV is not working, but local radio stations are starting to broadcast again.

In view of shifting priorities, Kaiser and CECOSIDA are determining how resources may be repurposed to meet immediate needs. CECOSIDA believes it can play a role, using the ANNVIV message and media network, including members in the provinces, to provide HIV and other health-related information (food, clean water, medical services, rehabilitation, etc.). As Jean-Francois commented “Now, more than ever, we need to LIVE UP.”

Generation M²: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds is the third in a series of large-scale, nationally representative surveys by the Foundation about young people’s media use.  The report is based on a survey conducted between October 2008 and May 2009 among a nationally representative sample of 2,002 3rd-12th grade students ages 8-18, including a self-selected subsample of 702 respondents who completed seven-day media use diaries, which were used to calculate multitasking proportions.

 Full Report (.pdf)

Toplines:

 2009 (.pdf)

 2004 (.pdf)

 1999 (.pdf)

Most Youth Say They Have No Rules About How Much Time They Can Spend With TV, Video Games, or Computers

WASHINGTON – With technology allowing nearly 24-hour media access as children and teens go about their daily lives, the amount of time young people spend with entertainment media has risen dramatically, especially among minority youth, according to a study released today by the Kaiser Family Foundation.  Today, 8-18 year-olds devote an average of 7 hours and 38 minutes (7:38) to using entertainment media across a typical day (more than 53 hours a week).  And because they spend so much of that time ‘media multitasking’ (using more than one medium at a time), they actually manage to pack a total of 10 hours and 45 minutes (10:45) worth of media content into those 7½ hours.

The amount of time spent with media increased by an hour and seventeen minutes a day over the past five years, from 6:21 in 2004 to 7:38 today.  And because of media multitasking, the total amount of media content consumed during that period has increased from 8:33 in 2004 to 10:45 today.

Generation M²: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds is the third in a series of large-scale, nationally representative surveys by the Foundation about young people’s media use.  It includes data from all three waves of the study (1999, 2004, and 2009), and is among the largest and most comprehensive publicly available sources of information about media use among American youth.

Mobile media driving increased consumption.  The increase in media use is driven in large part by ready access to mobile devices like cell phones and iPods.  Over the past five years, there has been a huge increase in ownership among 8- to 18-year-olds: from 39% to 66% for cell phones, and from 18% to 76% for iPods and other MP3 players.  During this period, cell phones and iPods have become true multi-media devices: in fact, young people now spend more time listening to music, playing games, and watching TV on their cell phones (a total of :49 daily) than they spend talking on them (:33).

Parents and media rules.  Only about three in ten young people say they have rules about how much time they can spend watching TV (28%) or playing video games (30%), and 36% say the same about using the computer.  But when parents do set limits, children spend less time with media: those with any media rules consume nearly 3 hours less media per day (2:52) than those with no rules.

Media in the home.  About two-thirds (64%) of young people say the TV is usually on during meals, and just under half (45%) say the TV is left on “most of the time” in their home, even if no one is watching.  Seven in ten (71%) have a TV in their bedroom, and half (50%) have a console video game player in their room.  Again, children in these TV-centric homes spend far more time watching: 1:30 more a day in homes where the TV is left on most of the time, and an hour more among those with a TV in their room.

“The amount of time young people spend with media has grown to where it’s even more than a full-time work week,” said Drew Altman, Ph.D., President and CEO of the Kaiser Family Foundation.  “When children are spending this much time doing anything, we need to understand how it’s affecting them – for good and bad.”

Heavy media users report getting lower grades.  While the study cannot establish a cause and effect relationship between media use and grades, there are differences between heavy and light media users in this regard.  About half (47%) of heavy media users say they usually get fair or poor grades (mostly Cs or lower), compared to about a quarter (23%) of light users.  These differences may or may not be influenced by their media use patterns. (Heavy users are the 21% of young people who consume more than 16 hours of media a day, and light users are the 17% of young people who consume less than 3 hours of media a day.)

Black and Hispanic children spend far more time with media than White children do. There are substantial differences in children’s media use between members of various ethnic and racial groups.  Black and Hispanic children consume nearly 4½ hours more media daily (13:00 of total media exposure for Hispanics, 12:59 for Blacks, and 8:36 for Whites).  Some of the largest differences are in TV viewing: Black children spend nearly 6 hours and Hispanics just under 5½ hours, compared to roughly 3½ hours a day for White youth.  The only medium where there is no significant difference between these three groups is print.  Differences by race/ethnicity remain even after controlling for other factors such as age, parents’ education, and single vs. two-parent homes. The racial disparity in media use has grown substantially over the past five years: for example, the gap between White and Black youth was just over two hours (2:12) in 2004, and has grown to more than four hours today (4:23).

Big changes in TV. For the first time over the course of the study, the amount of time spent watching regularly-scheduled TV declined, by 25 minutes a day (from 2004 to 2009).  But the many new ways to watch TV–on the Internet, cell phones, and iPods–actually led to an increase in total TV consumption from 3:51 to 4:29 per day, including :24 of online viewing, :16 on iPods and other MP3 players, and :15 on cell phones.  All told, 59% (2:39) of young people’s TV-viewing consists of live TV on a TV set, and 41% (1:50) is time-shifted, DVDs, online, or mobile.

“The bottom line is that all these advances in media technologies are making it even easier for young people to spend more and more time with media,” said Victoria Rideout, Foundation Vice President and director of the study.  “It’s more important than ever that researchers, policymakers and parents stay on top of the impact it’s having on their lives.”

Popular new activities like social networking also contribute to increased media use.  Top online activities include social networking (:22 a day), playing games (:17), and visiting video sites such as YouTube (:15).  Three-quarters (74%) of all 7^th-12^thgraders say they have a profile on a social networking site.

Types of media kids consume. Time spent with every medium other than movies and print increased over the past five years: :47 a day increase for music/audio, :38 for TV content, :27 for computers, and :24 for video games.  TV remains the dominant type of media content consumed, at 4:29 a day, followed by music/audio at 2:31, computers at 1:29, video games at 1:13, print at :38, and movies at :25 a day.

High levels of media multitasking. High levels of media multitasking also contribute to the large amount of media young people consume each day.  About 4 in 10 7^th-12^th graders say they use another medium “most” of the time they’re listening to music (43%), using a computer (40%), or watching TV (39%).

Additional findings:

• Reading.  Over the past 5 years, time spent reading books remained steady at about :25 a day, but time with magazines and newspapers dropped (from :14 to :09 for magazines, and from :06 to :03 for newspapers).  The proportion of young people who read a newspaper in a typical day dropped from 42% in 1999 to 23% in 2009.  On the other hand, young people now spend an average of :02 a day reading magazines or newspapers online.
• Media and homework.  About half of young people say they use media either “most” (31%) or “some” (25%) of the time they’re doing their homework.
• Rules about media content.  Fewer than half of all 8- to 18-year-olds say they have rules about what TV shows they can watch (46%), video games they can play (30%), or music they’re allowed to listen to (26%).  Half (52%) say they have rules about what they can do on the computer.
• Gender gap.  Girls spend more time than boys using social networking sites (:25 vs. :19), listening to music (2:33 vs. 2:06), and reading (:43 vs. :33).  Boys spend more time than girls playing console video games (:56 vs.: 14), computer games (:25 vs. :08), and going to video websites like YouTube (:17 vs. :12).
• Tweens and media.  Media use increases substantially when children hit the 11-14 year-old age group, an increase of 1:22 with TV content, 1:14 with music, 1:00 using the computer, and :24 playing video games, for total media exposure of 11:53 per day (vs. 7:51 for 8-10 year-olds).
• Texting.  7^th-12^th graders report spending an average of 1:35 a day sending or receiving texts. (Time spent texting is not counted as media use in this study.)

The report, Generation M²: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds, was released today at a forum in Washington, D.C. that featured the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, media executives and child development experts. The report, related materials, and a live webcast are available online.

This video explores the powerful force that media can be in the lives of teens and tweens. The three young people who are profiled explain what types of media they use—such as smart phones, computers, TV, video games—how much time they spend with media and what impact it has on their lives.

The Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard University Survey of Detroit Area Residents reveals a population that is facing some of the worst effects of the current economic recession. Home of the nation’s domestic auto industry, Detroit’s residents have been at the forefront of the country’s economic woes. The survey illuminates the experiences and needs of those living in the midst of this economic catastrophe, including questions about job loss and job security, views about the future of the Detroit area, the U.S. auto industry, and the future for American workers more generally. It looks at the stark differences in experiences and attitudes of those living in the city of Detroit compared with the surrounding suburbs. It also explores how Detroiters feel about their local, state, and federal governments, particularly in light of recent federal government action such as the economic stimulus and the aid provided to General Motors.

The survey is the 18th in a series of surveys that have been conducted as part of a three-way partnership between The Washington Post, the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University.

Survey Report

Toplines

Data Note on Health and the Economy in the Detroit Area

Read The Washington Post stories based on the survey

Almost a year into an often acrimonious health reform debate, we stand poised for near certain passage of historic health reform legislation. Yet, somewhat perplexingly, there’s now talk about whether a law that has not even been enacted might actually be repealed and reporters have been calling asking what the chances of repeal may be.

I have a very hard time imagining any scenario for repeal unfolding. Calls for repeal have much to do with maneuvering for advantage in the upcoming midterm election and little to do with how the American people will ultimately feel about the law. And the role of health reform in the midterms should not itself be over played. While the issue may be used to get the attention of voters in some districts who tend to turn out to vote in mid-term elections, health has not generally been a powerful voting issue in elections, and other issues such as jobs and the economy (as well as now potentially terrorism) are likely to be much bigger factors.

To be sure, once health reform passes there may be an “expectations gap,” with the public expecting help with their health insurance to arrive much faster than it actually will. One of our recent tracking polls found that about half of Americans believe that people will begin getting help buying coverage and insurance companies will be required to accept all comers this year or next. The actual timeline in the bills is slated to be quite a bit slower, and in the meantime it’s likely that costs will rise and the number of uninsured will increase as they would have if no health reform bill had passed.

But by 2013-2014, the only available remedy to people’s continuing struggles with health insurance will be the law itself—passed by the Congress, signed into law by the President and ready to provide tangible assistance to the public. Rather than support calls for repeal, the public’s reaction is much more likely to cut the other way—people will put pressure on their elected representatives to accelerate implementation of the insurance reforms and subsidies they can get under the law. Critics may be able to rally their base with attacks on health reform legislation, but it will deliver too much to too many to win general public support for repeal.

Implementation is not self-executing. It will take sustained and well-planned effort to make sure the public understands what the legislation does and how it will benefit them. Many groups have a role to play in making this happen as does the government. But once the legislation is out there, elected officials will have every incentive to make it work and keep it popular and perhaps even to improve on the help it provides to people struggling with their health care bills.

It’s an old maxim in political science that benefits once conferred are difficult, if not impossible to take away, and there are a variety of groups that will benefit under health reform: about 15 million additional people will be covered by Medicaid; 18-20 million people will receive new government subsidies for health insurance each year; many will benefit over time from guaranteed access to insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions; older people buying insurance on their own will see their premiums fall; and 3 million Medicare beneficiaries who fall into the donut hole each year could get better drug coverage. Virtually everybody gets added peace of mind from the insurance reforms that will protect them or a family member from being barred from insurance if they have a pre-existing condition or from being dropped or charged more if they get sick.

Experience with the Medicare prescription drug law may be instructive. In July of 2004, seven months after the law was passed, we asked people on Medicare what lawmakers should do about the law. 10 percent said it should be repealed. Four months later 12 percent of seniors said the same thing. Two years later in November of 2006, about a year after enrollment in drug plans began, we asked the public as a whole what message they would send to policymakers about the law. Still just 8 percent favored repeal while most favored improvements of different kinds.

Some have argued that the fact that the process of paying for the law begins before the benefits kick in will add to frustration with the law. But the financing structure of the law, a complex array of savings and revenue measures that affect many different groups, could actually become a strength that protects it from broad-based public resentment after passage. That’s because there is no single broad-based tax to rally the American people against. Health providers and industries take hits, but for the most part (with the exception of insurers), they have largely acquiesced to the savings and fees. Very high-income people will probably face higher taxes, though relatively few people would be affected. Young and healthy people may pay higher premiums as insurance market reforms are implemented, though many of them will be buying coverage for the first time so may not notice the difference. And, the so-called “Cadillac plan” tax (if it is included in a final deal) could end up affecting a large number of employers and workers over time since the thresholds for the tax grow much more slowly than the expected increase in premiums, but the effects will be indirect and not necessarily obvious to people. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates, in most cases the tax wouldn’t be paid because insurers and employers would instead trim coverage or introduce efficiencies to avoid it. The fact that the burden of paying for health reform is spread across so many different interests and groups has made the law vulnerable to traditional behind the scenes lobbying on Capitol Hill, but its combination of widespread benefits and targeted pain will provide political insulation with the public at-large after passage.

Still, health reform legislation will undoubtedly be controversial up until the (expected) passage and beyond, and debate about repeal may play a role in the mid-term elections later this year.  It will be especially important for the news media to keep any discussion of repeal in the context of the mid-term elections in which it will be raised so as not to add momentum to an idea that is mostly a reflection of the rough and tumble of election campaigns. Once the law is passed, there is little chance that the public will do anything but seek its more rapid implementation, and policymakers will work to build on and improve it over time.

The January Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds that Americans are divided over congressional health reform proposals, but also that large shares of people, including skeptics, become more supportive after being told about many of the major provisions in the bills. The poll, conducted before the Massachusetts Senate vote, finds opinion about the legislation is split, with 42 percent supporting the proposals, 41 percent opposing them and 16 percent withholding judgment. But majorities reported feeling more favorable toward the legislation after learning about key elements such as the availability of tax credits for small businesses, the creation of health insurance exchanges, the inability of insurers to deny people coverage because of pre-existing conditions and the move to close the Medicare drug benefit’s “doughnut hole.” The notable exceptions were the individual mandate and the overall price tag, both of which tended to make people less supportive of reform efforts.

The poll finds that even after a year of substantial media coverage of the health reform debate, many Americans remain unfamiliar with key elements of the major bills passed by the House and Senate. It also finds that Americans’ views of health reform generally track with their politics: Most Democrats (64%) support the proposals on Capitol Hill, while an even larger majority of Republicans(76%) oppose them. The middle ground is left to independents, with 41 percent in favor and 43 percent opposed – even as a narrow majority(52%) backs the general idea that it is more important than ever to take on health reform now.

News Release

Findings (.pdf)

Chartpack (.pdf)

Toplines (.pdf)

The Foundation, as part of The Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard University partnership series, conducted a poll to better understand how health care played into the mix of issues and frustrations that brought voters to the polls in the Massachusetts special election for U.S. Senate. The poll was conducted among a random sample of 880 voters in the Massachusetts special election on January 19, 2010 and also interviewed were 242 Massachusetts adults who did not participate in the election. This is the 19th in a series of surveys dating back to 1995 that have been conducted as part of this partnership project.

Toplines (.pdf)

Read The Washington Post article on the survey

The Message from Massachusetts, The Latest “Pulling It Together, From Drew Altman”

Generation M²: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds is the third in a series of large-scale, nationally representative surveys by the Foundation about young people’s media use. The report is based on a survey conducted between October 2008 and May 2009 among a nationally representative sample of 2,002 3rd-12th grade students ages 8-18, including a self-selected subsample of 702 respondents who completed seven-day media use diaries, which were used to calculate multitasking proportions.

Full Report (.pdf)

Toplines:

2009 (.pdf)

2004 (.pdf)

1999 (.pdf)

One of the first provisions that would be implemented under federal health reform bills in the House and the Senate would establish a national high-risk pool program to offer coverage to otherwise uninsurable individuals during the interim period between enactment and implementation of broader health care reforms.

High-risk pools provide a safety net for people who are denied coverage by private insurers due to their health. Most states that permit insurers to decline applicants for health reasons have high-risk pools today. The House and Senate bills would extend risk pool protection nationally, reduce the costs of risk pool coverage for many participants, and provide $5 billion dollars to subsidize the costs of coverage. The House and Senate provisions are similar, but not identical, and their provisions would need to be reconciled in any final health reform legislation.

This brief examines the role of high-risk pools as a coverage safety net today and reviews key issues involved in implementing a national high-risk pool. It was authored by Karen Pollitz of the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute.

Brief (.pdf)