Globally, an estimated 252.6 (95% CI, 111.4-424.5) million people live with best-corrected visual acuity of 20/60 or worse in the better-seeing eye. 1 People in the US fear losing vision more than memory, hearing, or speech, and consider visual acuity loss among the top 4 worst things that could happen to them. 2 No existing estimates appear to have used empirical data to estimate geographic differences, created estimates for persons younger than age 40 years, or accounted for increased prevalence in group quarters.Previous studies have estimated national visual acuity loss or blindness prevalence for important age ranges. The Vision Problems in the United States (VPUS) study estimated uncorrectable visual impairment and blindness for persons ages 40 years and older to occur in 4.2 million individuals (2.9%) in 2010. 3 Using similar methods and data for 2015, Varma et al 4 estimated national and state visual acuity loss or blindness prevalence for persons ages 40 years and older and arrived at a similar estimate of 4.24 million cases (2.8%). Both of these studies 3,4 are limited, since they excluded persons younger than 40 years and persons living in group quarters, such as nursing homes and prisons. Both studies 3,4 relied on metaanalytic summaries of similar selected population-based study data, and no other data sources, to estimate prevalence by age group, sex, and race/ethnicity and then calculated state-level estimates by applying these summary estimates to each state's population distribution. This method may lead to inaccuracies because the population-based study data (while of high quality) were collected 8 to 36 years in the past from locally IMPORTANCE Globally, more than 250 million people live with visual acuity loss or blindness, and people in the US fear losing vision more than memory, hearing, or speech. But it appears there are no recent empirical estimates of visual acuity loss or blindness for the US.OBJECTIVE To produce estimates of visual acuity loss and blindness by age, sex, race/ethnicity, and US state.

Registered Dietitians (RDs) promote nutrition practices and policies and can influence food consumption patterns to include nutrient dense foods such as beans. Although many evidence-based health benefits of bean consumption (e.g., cholesterol reduction, glycemic control) have been demonstrated, there is limited research on the knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of RDs regarding the inclusion of beans in a healthy diet. To fill this existing research gap, this cross-sectional survey explored the perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes of 296 RDs in Arizona, USA, toward beans. The RDs largely held positive attitudes toward the healthfulness of beans and were aware of many health benefits. Some gaps in awareness were evident, including effect on cancer risk, intestinal health benefits, folate content, and application with celiac disease patients. RDs with greater personal bean consumption had significantly higher bean health benefit knowledge. Twenty-nine percent of the RDs did not know the meaning of ‘legume’, and over two-thirds could not define the term ‘pulse’. It is essential that RDs have up-to-date, evidence-based information regarding bean benefits to provide appropriate education to patients, clients, and the public.

We forecast the health and budgetary impact of hepatitis C (HCV) treatment on the Medicare program based on currently observed rates of treatment among Medicare and non‐Medicare patients and identify the impact of higher rates of treatment among non‐Medicare populations. We developed a computer microsimulation model to conduct an epidemiologic forecast, a budgetary impact analysis, and a cost‐effectiveness analysis of the treatment of HCV based on three scenarios: 1) no treatment, 2) continuation of current‐treatment rates, and 3) treatment rates among non‐Medicare patients increased to match that of Medicare patients. The simulated population is based on National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data. HCV progression rates and costs were calculated in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program Medicare 5% claims data from the Chronic Hepatitis Cohort Study and published literature. We estimate that 13.6% of patients with HCV in the United States are enrolled in Medicare, but 75% will enter Medicare in the next 20 years. Medicare patients were over 5 times as likely to be treated in 2014‐2015 as other patients. Medicare paid over $9 billion in treatment costs in both 2015 and 2016 and will total $28.4 billion from 2017‐2026. Increasing treatment rates among non‐Medicare patients would lead to 234,000 more patients being treated, reduce HCV mortality by 19%, and decrease Medicare costs by $18.6 billion from 2017‐2026. We find that treatment remains cost‐effective under most assumptions, costing $31,718 per quality adjusted life year gained. Conclusion: Medicare treats a disproportionately large share of HCV patients. Continued low rates of treatment among non‐Medicare HCV patients will result in both reduced and deferred treatment, shifting future treatment costs to Medicare while increasing overall medical management costs, morbidity, and mortality. (Hepatology Communications 2017;1:99‐109)

Objectives The objective of this study was to determine the extent to which diets with a higher inflammatory potential, as measured by the Dietary Inflammatory Index (DII), are associated with cancer development in a cohort of rural post-menopausal women. Methods This study was a secondary analysis of participants of a randomized control trial evaluating the effect of vitamin D and calcium supplementation on cancer development in rural, post-menopausal women in Nebraska. From this cohort, diets were evaluated via a 2005 Block Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) at baseline and four years later (Visit 9). DII scores were calculated at both time points for each participant, including an unadjusted and energy-adjusted DII score. The relationship with DII scores and cancer development were evaluated using a chi-squared test and logistic regression, controlling for pertinent confounders. The difference in DII scores at baseline and Visit 9 for participants who developed cancer and non-cancer participants was examined via a repeated measure ANOVA test. Results There were 1977 participants with baseline and Visit 9 DII scores available for analysis. There was a significant difference in DII scores between baseline and Visit 9, with a significantly larger change in DII scores in the participants who developed cancer (p = 0.0194), shifting to higher pro-inflammatory scores at Visit 9. Cancer status was not associated with baseline DII scores, nor was DII score a predictor of cancer status, when controlling for confounders. Conclusions These findings illustrate how dietary patterns in persons diagnosed with cancer had significant changes over time, increasing inflammatory diet potential. This increase in inflammatory potential in cancer patients may impact outcomes like treatment success, overall survival, and cancer recurrence, creating a need for more research to further analyze the impact of cancer diagnoses on diet changes, and if these changes are detrimental to cancer survivor outcomes. Funding Sources None.