Exposure to pesticides poses great risk to agricultural workers and their families. Of the approximately 174,000 agricultural workers in Oregon, studies estimate that up to 40% of the workers in Oregon are indigenous and may be particularly vulnerable to the health risks of working in pesticide treated areas. Surveys conducted with Oregon farmworkers suggest that Latino and indigenous farmworkers differ demographically aAnd may have diverse occupational and health needs. All Latino workers reported Spanish as their native language, while indigenous workers spoke several different native languages. Latino workers were employed mostly in orchards (28%) and nurseries (24%), while indigenous workers were mostly pickers (40%). Indigenous farmworkers reported less frequent suitable occupational safety training, and potentially less knowledge of the health consequences of pesticides. Addressing the barriers to obtaining pesticide health and safety information is of primary importance, given the changing demographics of farmworkers in Oregon. This article concludes with a discussion of these findings and the programmatic activities that have been implemented in Oregon to improve farmworkers' understanding of hazards and rights associated with agricultural work.
This paper summarizes the proceedings and recommendations of a conference of the same name, co-sponsored by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Economic Affairs and the University of Massachusetts Maurice A. Donahue Institute. The conference was held on August 6, 1992 at Mt. Wachusett Community.
Increasing numbers of indigenous farmworkers from Mexico and Guatemala have been arriving in the Pacific Northwest (indigenous people are not of Hispanic or Latino descent and migrate from regions with unique cultural and linguistic traditions). Multilingual project outreach workers administered surveys to 150 farmworkers in Oregon to assess health, occupational safety, and general living conditions. This study confirms the increasing presence of indigenous peoples in Oregon and characterizes differences between indigenous and Latino farmworkers' occupational and health needs.
Context: Health Impact Assessment (HIA) has emerged as a promising tool to integrate health considerations into decision making. The growth and success of HIA practice in the United States will be dependent on building the capacity of practitioners. Objective: This article seeks to identify the role of state health agencies (SHAs) in building capacity for conducting HIAs and the key components of initiatives that produced effective HIAs and HIA programs. The authors proposed to answer 3 research questions: (1) What can be the role of the SHA in HIA? (2) What are the characteristics of successful state HIA programs? and (3) What are some effective strategies for building capacity for HIA in SHAs and local health departments? Design: The authors reviewed program reports from the ASTHO's pilot state health agencies (California, Minnesota, Oregon, and Wisconsin) that, between 2009 and 2011, created HIA programs to provide HIA training, conduct HIAs, and build practitioner networks. Main Outcome Measures: Program reports were examined for shared themes on the role of SHAs in a statewide HIA initiative, the characteristics of successful programs, and effective strategies for building capacity. Results: Despite differences among the programs, many shared themes existed. These include stressing the importance of a basic, sustained infrastructure for HIA practice; leveraging existing programs and networks; and working in partnership with diverse stakeholders. Conclusions: SHAs can build capacity for HIA, and SHAs can both lead and support the completion of individual HIAs. States and territories interested in starting comprehensive statewide HIA initiatives could consider implementing the strategies identified by the pilot programs.
Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death and disease in the United States. Oregon's coordinated care model for Medicaid provides an opportunity to consider novel ways to reduce tobacco use.We sought to evaluate the changes in tobacco cessation benefits, patient access to cessation interventions, and cigarette smoking prevalence before and after introduction of the statewide Coordinated Care Organization (CCO) cigarette smoking incentive metric for Medicaid members.Medicaid and public health collaborated to develop a novel population-level opportunity to reduce tobacco use. In 2016, an incentive metric for cigarette smoking was incorporated into Oregon's CCO Quality Incentive Program, which holds Oregon's CCOs accountable for providing comprehensive cessation benefits and for reducing tobacco use prevalence among members.We evaluated the changes in tobacco cessation benefits, patient-provider discussions of smoking cessation, and cigarette smoking prevalence before and after the introduction of the statewide CCO cigarette smoking incentive metric.All 15 CCOs now cover cessation counseling (telephone, individual, and group) and pharmacotherapy (all 7 FDA-approved medications). The number of CCOs requiring prior authorization for at least 1 FDA-approved pharmacotherapy decreased substantially. From 2016 through 2018, the percentage of Medicaid members who reported that their health care providers recommended cessation assistance increased above baseline. The incentive metric and aligned interventions were associated with a reduction in cigarette smoking prevalence among Medicaid members, as indicated by the electronic health record metric. Thirteen of 15 CCOs demonstrated a reduction in smoking prevalence with the statewide prevalence rate decreased from 29.3% to 26.6%.Since incentive metric implementation, progress has been made to reduce tobacco use among CCO members. Cross-agency partnerships between Medicaid and public health contributed to these successes.
