And single people are more likely to use mobility tools compared to those who are married, according to researchers from University College London (UCL) and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). Researchers looked at information from a group of more than 12,000 adults in England aged 50 to 89 who were tracked over a 13-year period. At the start of the study, 8,225 adults had no mobility difficulty and did not use mobility assistive products (MAPs). Some 2,480 were deemed to have “unmet need” and 1,375 were using mobility aids. During the follow-up period, there were 2,313 “transitions” where people went from having no mobility issues to needing some help with getting around. And 1,274 people started to use mobility aids. Compared with men, women were 49% more likely to transition from not needing mobility aids to needing to use them, according to the study which has been published in The Lancet Public Health. But were 21% less likely to go on to use mobility aids when they needed them. The authors said their study showed “barriers to access” for women. For both men and women, with every year that passed during the study period the need for mobility aids increased. People who were older, less educated, less wealthy or reported being disabled were more likely to “transition from no need to unmet need, and from unmet need to use”, the authors said, with this indicating a “higher prevalence of mobility limitations and MAP need overall among these groups”. They added: “Finally, marital or partnership status was not associated with transitioning to unmet need; however, single people were more likely to transition from unmet need to use compared with married or partnered people.” Jamie Danemayer, first author of the study from UCL Computer Science and UCL’s Global Disability Innovation Hub, said: “Our analysis suggests that there is a clear gender gap in access to mobility aids. “Though our data didn’t ascertain the reason why participants weren’t using mobility aids, other research tells us that women are often more likely than men to face obstacles such as cost barriers as a result of well-documented income disparities between genders. “Many mobility aids are designed for men rather than women, which we think may be a factor. “Using mobility aids can also make a disability visible, which can impact the safety and stigma experienced by women, in particular. “There’s a critical need for further research to identify and break down the barriers preventing women from accessing mobility aids that would improve their quality of life.” Professor Cathy Holloway, also from UCL, added: “Not having access to mobility aids when a person needs one can have a big impact on their independence, well-being and quality of life. “Our analysis suggests that women, in particular, regardless of other factors such as education and employment status, are not getting the support that they need.” Professor Shereen Hussein, senior author of the study and lead of the social care group at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said: “The research provides compelling evidence of gender disparities in accessing assistive technology, suggesting that cost, design bias, and social stigma are likely to disproportionally affect women. “This underscores the need for inclusive, gender-sensitive approaches in the design, production and inclusivity of assistive technologies.”
Thanksgiving dinner in Kansas doesn’t need to be rehash of November election rifts
U.S. stocks climbed after market superstar Nvidia and another round of companies said they’re making even fatter profits than expected. The S & P 500 pulled 0.5% higher Thursday after flipping between modest gains and losses several times in the morning. The Dow Jones Industrial Average jumped 1.1%, and the Nasdaq composite edged up less than 0.1%. Banks, smaller companies and other areas of the stock market that tend to do best when the economy is strong helped lead the way, while bitcoin briefly broke above $99,000. Crude oil, meanwhile, continued to rise. Treasury yields edged higher in the bond market. On Thursday: The S & P 500 rose 31.60 points, or 0.5%, to 5,948.71. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 461.88 points, or 1.1%, to 43,870.35. The Nasdaq composite rose 6.28 points, or less than 0.1%, to 18,972.42. The Russell 2000 index of smaller companies rose 38.48 points, or 1.7%, to 2,364.02. For the week: The S & P 500 is up 78.09 points, or 1.3%. The Dow is up 425.36 points, or 1%. The Nasdaq is up 292.30 points, or 1.6%. The Russell 2000 is up 60.18 points, or 2.6%. For the year: The S & P 500 is up 1,178.88 points, or 24.7%. The Dow is up 6,180.81 points, or 16.4%. The Nasdaq is up 3,961.07 points, or 26.4%. The Russell 2000 is up 336.94 points, or 16.6%.An F-35 fight? Support for Fort Worth-produced aircraft could derail government efficiency cut
Southwest Airlines Co. Announcement: Southwest Airlines Co. Investors Are Encouraged to Contact The Rosen Law Firm About Ongoing Investigation of Breaches of Fiduciary Duties by the Directors and Officers – LUVMedtronic's MDT short percent of float has fallen 4.76% since its last report. The company recently reported that it has 10.18 million shares sold short , which is 0.8% of all regular shares that are available for trading. Based on its trading volume, it would take traders 1.93 days to cover their short positions on average. Why Short Interest Matters Short interest is the number of shares that have been sold short but have not yet been covered or closed out. Short selling is when a trader sells shares of a company they do not own, with the hope that the price will fall. Traders make money from short selling if the price of the stock falls and they lose if it rises. Short interest is important to track because it can act as an indicator of market sentiment towards a particular stock. An increase in short interest can signal that investors have become more bearish, while a decrease in short interest can signal they have become more bullish. See Also: List of the most shorted stocks Medtronic Short Interest Graph (3 Months) As you can see from the chart above the percentage of shares that are sold short for Medtronic has declined since its last report. This does not mean that the stock is going to rise in the near-term but traders should be aware that less shares are being shorted. Comparing Medtronic's Short Interest Against Its Peers Peer comparison is a popular technique amongst analysts and investors for gauging how well a company is performing. A company's peer is another company that has similar characteristics to it, such as industry, size, age, and financial structure. You can find a company's peer group by reading its 10-K, proxy filing, or by doing your own similarity analysis. According to Benzinga Pro , Medtronic's peer group average for short interest as a percentage of float is 4.17%, which means the company has less short interest than most of its peers. Did you know that increasing short interest can actually be bullish for a stock? This post by Benzinga Money explains how you can profit from it. This article was generated by Benzinga's automated content engine and was reviewed by an editor. © 2024 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.
Article content OTTAWA — The number of Canadians in need of affordable housing is still rising despite billions in federal spending to tackle housing affordability, the parliamentary budget officer said in a new analysis published Thursday. Recommended Videos The report says 2.4 million Canadian households are now in “core housing need” — 662,000 more than when Canada launched its national housing strategy in 2017. The national housing strategy aims to pull 580,000 households out of core housing need, or reduce their need, by 2028. But the PBO’s latest projections say the government is nowhere near reaching that goal. The PBO projects there will actually be 926,000 more households in core housing need by 2028, compared to the launching of the housing strategy in 2017. The PBO did acknowledge, however, that without the government’s affordability measures, another 78,000 households would have been in core housing need by 2027. The term “core housing need” is an affordability measure which means a household is living in a home which is in major need of repair, doesn’t have enough bedrooms, or where costs — including utilities, property tax, rent or mortgage — are more than 30 per cent of a household’s gross income. The household also must be located in a community where the median cost of a home is more than 30 per cent of the household’s gross income to be considered in a core housing need. The PBO said one factor driving unaffordability for families that own their home is higher interest rates when they renew their mortgage. “Although the policy interest rate has been cut in 2024 and we expect the policy rate to continue to decline, the average interest rate for outstanding mortgages is expected to remain higher than in 2017,” the report said. For renters, the PBO said the rising costs come from rising demand — partly from immigration — along with a continued shortage of housing stock since there was a delay in housing starts to match the rising demand. The PBO said Canada’s recently revised immigration targets should reduce the pressure on rising rent prices. The report also tallied how much the government has been spending on housing affordability programs. “Over the 10-year term of Canada’s national housing strategy, Canada plans to spend an average of $6.1 billion annually on programs to address housing affordability,” the report said. Factoring in inflation, the PBO said that is a 50 per cent increase in spending compared with 10 years before the strategy launched. It works out to about $168 per person every year.
Offsetting NHS funding from existing services to pay for expensive new drugs could be harming the health of the nation, a study suggests. The cost of innovative new medicines “do not always justify the benefits they offer”, researchers warned. They suggest England’s pharmaceutical pricing policy should be reformed “to better serve the health needs” of all NHS patients. However, NHS spending watchdog the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) said its role is “vital”, with it helping to prevent a “postcode lottery” in patient access and potentially higher costs. The study, led by academics at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), looked at how many additional years of full health were generated by drugs approved by Nice between 2000 and 2020. The analysis found new medicines led to 3.75 million additional years of full health, costing £75 billion. However, it suggests that redirecting that funding to existing services could have generated five million years of full health. Researchers said that while new drugs “could have benefited patients who received them” access “came at a considerable cost for others who might have missed out on potential health gains due to necessary disinvestment or underinvestment in other forms of care to fund these newly recommended drugs”. Lead author Huseyin Naci, associate professor of health policy at the LSE, added: “New drugs can be a lifeline for patients who have significant unmet clinical needs. “However, innovative drugs are expensive, and their costs do not always justify the benefits they offer.” Academics said the findings relate to Nice’s cost-effectiveness threshold and suggest it should be lowered. Nice advises its committees to consider new drugs as offering value for money to the NHS if they cost less than £20,000 to £30,000 per additional year of full health gained. Prof Naci added: “After more than a decade of underinvestment in the NHS, it may no longer be justifiable to have a Nice threshold that doesn’t reflect the amount the NHS needs to spend to generate health. “Lowering the threshold would allow the NHS to negotiate better prices for new medicines, taking into account not only the benefits to patients receiving these drugs but also the impact on other NHS users who may lose out due to resource reallocation.” Irene Papanicolas, professor of health services, policy and practice at Brown University, said the findings, published in The Lancet, “are reflective of the tight budget of the NHS”. “In this environment, offsetting funding from existing services to pay high prices for new drugs can more adversely affect population health than in health systems where there is greater budgetary flexibility,” she added. Beth Woods, senior research fellow at Centre for Health Economics at University of York, said: “This work shows that there is a need to reform pharmaceutical pricing policy in England to better serve the health needs of all patients served by the NHS.” A spokesperson for Nice said the spending watchdog’s role is “vital” and helps prevent a postcode lottery. “Spending money on new medicines does create an opportunity cost, displacing services elsewhere in the health system,” they said. “That’s why Nice’s role is vital: we carefully evaluate new treatments and recommend only those that offer value-for-money for the taxpayer. “This is especially important during times of significant challenge to the NHS. Every pound of the NHS budget can only be spent once. “If Nice had not recommended these innovative new medicines, they almost certainly would have been used within the NHS anyway. “Without Nice’s input, funding decisions would be taken locally, leading to inequitable patient access – the ‘postcode lottery’ – and potentially higher costs, because multiple local negotiations with pharmaceutical companies may not drive best value for the NHS.”Snowflake EVP Christian Kleinerman sells $2.7 million in stockC3.ai (AI) Reports Q3: Everything You Need To Know Ahead Of Earnings
NoneMontana’s Attorney General Austin Knudsen said he has received a request from the RCMP seeking to conduct surveillance at two upcoming gun shows in his state—a request that he strongly opposes. Knudsen said the Division of Criminal Investigation in the Montana Department of Justice recently received the RCMP request regarding gun shows in Bozeman and Kalispell. Knudsen said he will try to prevent the RCMP from coming. The Republican AG said he spoke to the local sheriffs where the gun shows will be held and said everyone involved is in agreement. Knudsen said the surveillance is “inappropriate” and “probably illegal” and that he will consider suing the U.S. federal government if necessary. Any RCMP action in the U.S. would be coordinated with a federal law enforcement agency such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) or the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Epoch Times reached out to the RCMP and the ATF for comment but didn’t immediately hear back. Knudsen mentioned an incident two years prior when an undercover RCMP officer had been reportedly conducting surveillance at a gun show in Great Falls, Montana, as part of joint work with the ATF. Cascade County Sheriff Jesse Slaughter said his outfit had not been notified the U.S. and Canadian federal agencies were conducting an operation. Slaughter said the situation could have turned into an “international incident.” Much of Canada’s gun crime can be traced to firearms sourced from the United States. For example, 70 percent of all traced guns used in crimes in Ontario in 2021 came from the United States, according to the data from the Ontario police’s Firearms Analysis and Tracing Enforcement (FATE) program. Montana is a northern U.S. state that shares a border with B.C., Alberta, and Saskatchewan. Montana has relatively relaxed gun laws, with no licence required to purchase long guns and handguns. Carrying a firearm, even concealed, is also not illegal, unless the individual is legally prohibited from possession. Knudsen, a firearms aficionado, criticized the Canadian federal political leadership during his radio interview and invited Saskatchewan and Alberta residents to “move down here.” “I feel really bad for our neighbours to the north,” he said.
What experts are saying about Bill Belichick taking the North Carolina job