The term “eating disorder” carries stigma and many stereotypes in society. When someone hears the term, they often think of a white adolescent girl, bone thin, with ribs sticking out of her sides and a feeding tube up her nose. This extreme example represents an immensely small population of a large group of people struggling every day with something so many take for granted: eating.

The general public vastly misunderstands eating disorders. When thinking of eating disorders, most think of two types, the one where extremely underweight people do not eat, and the one where people make themselves vomit after every meal. Some may think in both scenarios people choose to engage in those behaviors which means they should simply stop when they want to. However, people with anorexia cannot “just eat,” people with bulimia cannot “just stop,” and it is not “just a phase.” Many believe in an eating disorder “look” as in a person with anorexia must be underweight and a “normal sized” person cannot possibly struggle with an eating disorder. People with eating disorders do not check boxes and they do not fall neatly into diagnostic looks or criteria. Eating disorders, despite popular belief are not about the food, but rather a complex interplay of many different insecurities and worries all channeled into food.

Eating disorders do not only affect models, they affect a large number of people, yet the public directs so little attention to them which only causes a perpetuation of misconceptions. Despite a general need for a greater understanding about eating disorders, they receive so little time, energy or money. This keeps stigma going which leads to adverse effects such as “more marked eating disorder symptoms, a longer duration of illness, lower self ‐ esteem, and greater self ‐ stigma of seeking psychological help.” (Griffiths para. 34) Eating disorders remain incredibly underfunded for research and other prevention strategies, thus creating ongoing misunderstandings. Government funding for eating disorders remains incredibly low compared to other issues “not as pervasive nor as fatal as eating disorders.” (Ekren para 3) The US government funds only 28 million dollars a year to eating disorder research which works out to about 93 cents for each person diagnosed with an eating disorder in America (Ekern para 3). This is compared to alcoholism which receives 505 million dollars, schizophrenia with 352 million, depression with 328 million and sleep disorders with 187 million (Ekern para 4). The funding statistics beg the question: why is something which needs so many resources continuing to receive so few? Currently, despite their prevalence in American society, people remain ignorant to the problem of eating disorders, spreading distorted ideas and beliefs. Increasing funding for eating disorder research into causes, education and best prevention strategies potentially greatly benefits America. The Pennsylvanian Department of Health should take measures to combat this problem and contribute to research initiatives by creating an eating disorder research grant given to the PA Health Research Office.

Thesis:  Currently there is a devastating lack of funding for research on eating disorders despite their prevalence. The Pennsylvanian Department of Health should help to combat this problem by increasing their funding for eating disorder research through grants given to the PA Health Research Office

Solution Section:

A way to start to combat eating disorders in America is to increase funding for eating disorder research. As previously stated, eating disorders are severely underfunded in America, yet are such a prevalent and pervasive problem, affecting people of all ages. An increase in research could help find more concreate causes of eating disorders and work to figure out the most effective ways to treat them. Research on eating disorders could also focus on finding the most successful intervention methods, and the best ways to education children, and the public at large about the problems at hand. Researching things like early warning signs would help medical professionals have the tool to intervene early and effectively

When looking at funding and how to best support those with eating disorders, an issue comes in where the funding can and should come from, and the best place that it should be channeled. When looking on the national scale, it is apparent the national government has taken little care to learn more about eating disorders based on their incredible lack of funding. Therefore, the best way for eating disorders to get the funding for research, prevention and education would be to go to a state-by-state basis and take a more local government funding approach. A local approach would be done by taking state money and creating grants that would go to mental health research and specifically eating disorder research.

The commonwealth of Pennsylvania is in a unique position to become trailblazers in eating disorder funding and research. For one, the Health Secretary of Pennsylvania has a unique background and interest in eating disorders that put her in a perfect situation to being to raise funding and awareness. Before becoming Health Secretary, Rachel Levine founded the Penn State Hershey Adolescent Eating Disorder Program. She has an extensive background in treating eating disorder and carried this interest into her current role in the Pennsylvania government. In 2018, “as part of the commonwealth’s commitment to raising awareness of eating disorders,” Governor Tom Wolf signed a proclamation declaring an official eating disorder week in Pennsylvania (Wolf Administration Discusses Impacts of Eating Disorders para. 3). In the years that followed, Dr. Levine joined with legislative and eating disorder advocates to emphasize the need for resources and support. In 2020, Governor Wolf showed his support for those with mental illness once again when he launched “a multi-agency effort and anti-stigma campaign, Reach Out PA: Your Mental Health Matters, aimed at expanding resources and overall support of mental health and related health care priorities.” (Department of Health Urges Awareness para. 6)

Pennsylvania currently ranks fifth in the country for mental health funding with 287.17 dollars given per capita per year (Sawe para. 5). Pennsylvania’s past allocation of resources indicate a willingness to fund mental health initiatives, and thus directing funding to eating disorder support would be feasible and understandable in this state setting. A state level approach to gaining funding for eating disorder support and research is the best way to start to develop a more national approach to treating eating disorders.

The best way for the state to begin to direct funds for eating disorder research and support would be through state grants in the Department of Health in their Health Research Office. The function of this office is to receive health-related grants from the state, and to carry out the research directives from these grants. A grant from the state for an eating disorder research project in the PA Health Research Office would be the best way Pennsylvania and its leadership could take their interest in this subject and begin to create concreate change in this field. This state funded research project would likely aim to learn more about the causes of eating disorder, but also aim to gain insight in the best preventative measures. By looking at not just cause, but also the measures that can affect outcomes of eating disorders, this project can begin to outline procedures and interventions governments and states can make in preventing these diseases. Any project resulting from this grant should aim to provide details for the state in how to intervene and support those with eating disorders and those at greatest risk.

There still may be questions over the effectiveness of a state approach to funding rather than a national approach. Some believe the recent attention the federal government has given to eating disorders may indicate a national approach as more effective. Congress recently introduced the SERVE Act which “to provide for eating disorders treatment for members and certain former members of the uniformed services, and dependents of such members,” (SERVE Act para. 1) and the LIVE Well Act which “to include eating disorders prevention within the nutrition education and obesity prevention grant program and the local wellness program” (LIVE Well Act para. 2). These two bills, however, do not prove a new dedication of the national government to eating disorders. These bills have yet to make it to the floor of the house and are very unlikely to make it there. When it comes to the national government, most major attempts to bring change to eating disorder awareness and practices have been ineffective, thus strengthening the case for a more localized approach.

If Pennsylvania would expand its demonstrated interest in finding and providing resources for mental health awareness and resources into a more specific eating disorder research initiative, they could become a model for other states around the country. If Pennsylvania were to take the steps to allocate money, more specifically to the Pennsylvania Department of Health, overseen by Dr. Levine, they could demonstrate to other states a process and procedure to create and implement funding and resources. If done in a way that demonstrates significant results, other states may see the need to take similar steps and fund eating disorder research and other preventative measures, thus spreading the awareness to a much greater region than just Pennsylvania. It would only take one state to create a funding blueprint for other states to do the same.

Works Cited

United States, Congress, “SERVE Act.” Congress.gov, 2019. http://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2767.

United States, Congress, “LIVE Well Act.” Congress.gov, 2019. http://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2625.

Warren, Perry S. “Co-Sponsorship – Eating Disorder Parental Education Legislation.” The Official Website for the Pennsylvania General Assembly., Legislative Data Processing Center, 10 Jan. 2017, http://www.legis.state.pa.us//cfdocs/Legis/CSM/showMemoPublic.cfm?chamber=H&SPick=20170&cosponId=21951.

Sawe, Benjamin Elisha. “States Who Spend the Most on Mental Health Funding.” WorldAtlas, Aug. 1, 2017, worldatlas.com/articles/states-who-spend-the-most-on-mental-health-funding.html.

“Wolf Administration Discusses Impacts of Eating Disorders.” Pennsylvania Pressroom, PA Press Office , 27 Feb. 2018, https://www.media.pa.gov/Pages/Health-Details.aspx?newsid=480.

“Department of Health Urges Awareness.” Pennsylvania Pressroom, PA Press Office , 25 Feb. 2020, https://www.media.pa.gov/Pages/Health-Details.aspx?newsid=722.

For my advocacy project, I would like to continue my subject matter from my issue brief and focus on eating disorders in America. The advocacy organization I could hypothetically partner with could be the National Eating Disorder Association (NEDA). NEDA is a major eating disorder resource in the United States and is constantly working to spread awareness of and resources for eating disorders. The exigence for this organization is clear with how prevalent eating disorders are in America, and how deadly eating disorders are. NEDA’s audience is people currently struggling with eating disorders and their families as they provide both education and resources. Other audiences include people who have recovered, medical professionals, mental health professionals, and lawmakers. Overall, they target anyone affected by eating disorder, or those who can impact change in the community. NEDA’s biggest constraints to their advocacy would most likely be funding, and the ability to reduce stigma that is so engrained in society.

https://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/

Here is a post from the NEDA blog:

https://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/blog/you-didnt-choose-and-you-didnt-fail

The issue:

Many people across America have heard the term “eating disorder,” but not many people know what this means or what kind of problems this community faces. Eating disorders are much more common than many realize. Anorexia is the third most common chronic illness among adolescents (Eating Disorder Facts and Statistics para. 1). In addition, eating disorders have the highest mortality rate of any other mental illness with around one person dying every hour as a result of an eating disorder (Eating Disorder Facts and Statistics para. 1). One of the most striking things about eating disorders and their treatment is that over 70% of those who could be clinically diagnosed with eating disorders will never seek professional treatment because of stigmas, misconceptions and an overall lack of education (Eating Disorder Facts and Statistics para. 1). The public is generally unaware of such startling statistics, or of the overall prevalence of eating disorders in society. This additionally means most people are not aware of the need for research on eating disorders to better diagnose and treat those afflicted and educate the public. There is clear need to accelerate research in this field as the “causes, risk factors, brain changes and other biological abnormalities in eating disorders is unclear” (Research para. 1). If more research can be done on this topic eating disorders may become preventable and recoverable

Causes:

The cause of this lack of research leading to inadequate education, diagnosis and treatment has an inadvertent cause. Society is unaware that eating disorders are a big issue and require more research. Our society still knows very little about eating disorders as it was not until 1983 when Karen Carpenter died from anorexia that it became something people even talked about (Ekern para 1). Much of the inadvertent cause comes from the fact that government funding for eating disorders is incredibly low compared to other issues that are “not as pervasive nor as fatal as eating disorders.” (Ekren para 3) The US government funds only 28 million dollars a year to eating disorder research which is about 93 cents for each person diagnosed with an eating disorder (Ekern para 3). This is compared to alcoholism which receives 505 million dollars, schizophrenia with 352 million, depression with 328 million and sleep disorders with 187 million (Ekern para 4).

Policy instruments:

A policy instrument that would be used to increase the funding for eating disorder research would be inducements in the form of increased pubic funding. While it would be nice to think that the federal government would increase their funding for such topics, it is also widely known that this may be a difficult institution to target for increased funding. Breaking it down to a state-by-state basis and having states provide an increase in funding would be much more effective. One of the reasons why targeting states may be more effective, especially in Pennsylvania, is that there is more of an interest in the subject. In Pennsylvania, the Secretary of Health, Dr. Rachel Levine, previously worked as chief of the Division of Adolescent Medicine and Eating Disorders at Penn State Hershey Children’s Hospital (University of the Sciences para. 6). This unique circumstance of Pennsylvania’s leadership makes the state government an ideal place to direct funding incentives. Institutions such as the National Eating Disorder Association (NEDA) have been directing their advocacy projects towards state and federal governments to attempt an increase in funding for research.

Works cited:

Ekern, Baxter. “Funding for Eating Disorder Professionals Seeking to Do Research.” Eating Disorder Hope, 25 July 2015, http://www.eatingdisorderhope.com/blog/funding-for-eating-disorder-professionals-seeking-to-do-research.

“Eating Disorder Facts & Statistics.” Eating Disorder Facts & Eating Disorder Statistics | Eating Recovery Center, http://www.eatingrecoverycenter.com/conditions/eating-disorders/facts-statistics.

“Research.” FREED, 20 Feb. 2018, http://www.freedeatingdisorders.org/research/.

“Secretary of Health Dr. Rachel Levine to Address 2019 Graduates at Commencement.” University of the Sciences, 1 Apr. 2019, http://www.usciences.edu/news/2019/secretary-of-health-dr-rachel-levine-to-address-2019-graduates-at-commencement.html.

I do not really know where to start this post. It is hard to pick one place to start talking about the Coronavirus. The sheer size of this pandemic and its effects are astonishing. It has almost seemed like a domino effect around the world. The effects of the virus are seen not just in the medical field and the overwhelming rate of cases hospitals and medical facilities must deal with, but also in many social aspects. One of the scariest domino effects of the virus is the toll it is taking on the global economy. The stock market is crumbling, and businesses are falling under. Even once the virus clears up, the economic downfall will be felt for a long time.

Every single person in this country has had their lives turned upside down. It is very upsetting to know that I will not being going back to school this semester, and I will have to move out of my dorm in the next few days. I do know, however, there were people whose lives took much more drastic turns than my own.   I feel for the people who were supposed to get married in the next few weeks as many of them have had to cancel their weddings. I also feel for the people who are seniors in high school and college because many graduations and other events have been cancelled.

I am still trying to process it all. It is very hard to process as everything changes so rapidly all the time. It seems like I wrap my head around one development, either personal or national, and a new one comes right along seemingly turning my life, and the lives around me upside-down all over again.

I hope anyone reading this is safe, healthy and keeping busy.

Deliberation: Ex- Con and Moving’ On- The Reintegration of Prisoners Back into Society (Monday 3/2)

The topic of this deliberation was all about the issues surrounding the reintegration of prisoners once they leave jail. It looked at some of the biggest problems this population faces and what can be done to remedy these problems. The first approach looked at the process toward release and how to better prepare prisoners for the actual departure from the jail. One of the most interesting things I think this approach suggested was tattoo removal before release. This was something I had never really considered important until it was suggested in the deliberation. Tattoos often carry a certain stigma with them, and removal before prisoners are released could significantly assist in reintegration. The second approach looked at professional development. This is something immensely important to the process of reintegration. I had heard of programs like what this approach was suggesting, but what I found particularly interesting about this approach was continued assistance after release as opposed to just before release. I feel as this is a great suggestion to help support prisoners in finding and keeping work after release. The last approach discussed housing for convicted criminals upon release. They talked about halfway houses, and how vital they are for ensuring lower recidivism rates. They suggested expanding halfway houses and creating more to help a greater number of prisoners upon their release.

Overall, I found the deliberation to be run smoothly and the approaches flowed and fit together very well. There were a few interesting differences from my deliberation I found in the structure and layout of the event. First, I found it interesting that the moderators in team overview created a strict set of ground rules about how the event would be run and how things would and would not be discussed. I felt as if laying out the rules like this was overly formal and more less of an uncomfortable way to start the deliberation. Something else I found that was strange about the introduction was the way they had everyone go around the room and tell their name, position (student, employee, town member etc.) and their “person stake” in the issue. I thought this was incredibly uncomfortable as for the most part all the people there were students who had little to no personal stake in the issue. Additionally, there were a lot of attendees to the deliberation so introductions took up a lot of time that could have been used for discussion later down the road.

Something I did really like about the setup of this deliberation was that they had all the chairs set up in a large circle around the room. I felt as if this gave the event more of a conversational feel and less of a presentation feel that my deliberation had. Being in a circle made it easier to talk with people rather than talk at them. It made the event feel more relaxed and less stiff and formal. Another thing I really liked about this deliberation was the pro- con format the approaches had with their discussion. They introduced their ideas and then asked questions strictly about the pros and cons of their approach. I think this really helped keep the discussion on track with the approach and not veer off topic. At first, I was not a fan of such a strict format, but as the deliberation progressed, I really liked how efficient it was in discussing the topics.