Chronic arsenic exposure has been suggested to contribute to diabetes development. We performed a systematic review of the experimental and epidemiologic evidence on the association of arsenic and type 2 diabetes. We identified 19 in vitro studies of arsenic and glucose metabolism. Five studies reported that arsenic interfered with transcription factors involved in insulin-related gene expression: upstream factor 1 in pancreatic β-cells and peroxisome proliferative-activated receptor γ in preadipocytes. Other in vitro studies assessed the effect of arsenic on glucose uptake, typically using very high concentrations of arsenite or arsenate. These studies provide limited insight on potential mechanisms. We identified 10 in vivo studies in animals. These studies showed inconsistent effects of arsenic on glucose metabolism. Finally, we identified 19 epidemiologic studies (6 in high-arsenic areas in Taiwan and Bangladesh, 9 in occupational populations, and 4 in other populations). In studies from Taiwan and Bangladesh, the pooled relative risk estimate for diabetes comparing extreme arsenic exposure categories was 2.52 (95% confidence interval, 1.69–3.75), although methodologic problems limit the interpretation of the association. The evidence from occupational studies and from general populations other than Taiwan or Bangladesh was inconsistent. In summary, the current available evidence is inadequate to establish a causal role of arsenic in diabetes. Because arsenic exposure is widespread and diabetes prevalence is reaching epidemic proportions, experimental studies using arsenic concentrations relevant to human exposure and prospective epidemiologic studies measuring arsenic biomarkers and appropriately assessing diabetes should be a research priority.

Background The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), works to ensure accessible, quality, health care for the nation's underserved populations, especially those who are medically, economically, or geographically vulnerable. HRSA-designated primary care Health Professional Shortage Areas (pcHPSAs) provide a vital measure by which to identify underserved populations and prioritize locations and populations lacking access to adequate primary and preventive health care-the foundation for advancing health equity and maintaining health and wellness for individuals and populations. However, access to care is a complex, multifactorial issue that involves more than just the number of health care providers available, and pcHPSAs alone cannot fully characterize the distribution of medically, economically, and geographically vulnerable populations. Methods and findings In this county-level analysis, we used descriptive statistics and multiple correspondence analysis to assess how HRSA's pcHPSA designations align geographically with other established markers of medical, economic, and geographic vulnerability. Reflecting recognized social determinants of health (SDOH), markers included demographic characteristics, race and ethnicity, rates of low birth weight births, median household income, poverty, educational attainment, and rurality. Nationally, 96 percent of U.S. counties were either classified as whole county or partial county pcHPSAs or had one or more established markers of medical, economic, or geographic vulnerability in 2017, suggesting that at-risk populations were nearly ubiquitous throughout the nation. Primary care HPSA counties in HHS Regions 4 and 6 (largely lying within the southeastern and south central United States) had the most pervasive and complex patterns in population risk.

No abstract

Objective. Inform health planning and policy discussions by describing Health Resources and Services Administration's (HRSA's) Health Workforce Simulation Model (HWSM) and examining the HWSM's 2025 supply and demand projections for primary care physicians, nurse practitioners (NPs), and physician assistants (PAs). Data Sources. HRSA's recently published projections for primary care providers derive from an integrated microsimulation model that estimates health workforce supply and demand at national, regional, and state levels. Principal Findings. Thirty-seven states are projected to have shortages of primary care physicians in 2025, and nine states are projected to have shortages of both primary care physicians and PAs. While no state is projected to have a 2025 shortage of primary care NPs, many states are expected to have only a small surplus. Conclusions. Primary care physician shortages are projected for all parts of the United States, while primary care PA shortages are generally confined to Midwestern and Southern states. No state is projected to have shortages of all three provider types. Projected shortages must be considered in the context of baseline assumptions regarding current supply, demand, provider-service ratios, and other factors. Still, these findings suggest geographies with possible primary care workforce shortages in 2025 and offer opportunities for targeting efforts to enhance workforce flexibility. Key Words. Primary care, scope of practice, health workforce, shortage, training Essential to successful health planning and policy is a solid understanding of future health workforce supply and demand (Ono, Lafortune, and Schoenstein 2013; GAO 2015). Both federal and nonfederal entities use workforce forecasts to guide their health education, training, and care delivery programs. In support of program planning within the Department of Health and Human Services and across the broader health community, the Health Resources and