The cost of a minimum essential food basket in Northern Ireland : Pilot study for two household types

A good diet and adequate food supply is central to promoting health and wellbeing. A poor quality diet is associated with higher rates of chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease and certain cancers. Social and economic conditions impact on diet quality which in turn contributes to health inequalities. This relationship is recognised and addressed at a policy level in NI through the Fitter Future for all framework(1). Access to a healthy diet requires transport, money and skills such as budgeting and food preparation. Food is the most flexible aspect of the household budget due to the fact the consumers can meet hunger and calorie needs on cheaper, nutritionally-poor foods.

The cost of a minimum essential food basket in the Republic of Ireland: Study for six household types.

A Minimum Essential Standard of Living (MESL) is derived from a negotiated consensus on what people believe is a minimum standard. It is a standard of living that meets an individual’s or a household’s physical, psychological and social needs. This is calculated by identifying the goods and services required by different household types in order to meet their needs. While an MESL is based on needs, not wants, it is a standard of living below which nobody should be expected to live. This report focuses on food, one of the 16 elements of the Minimum Essential Standard of Living (MESL) data. It is based on a methodology called Consensual Budget Standards (CBS). The report is presented in the context of increasing concerns about the issue of food poverty in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) and an increase in the number of people reporting that they do not have enough money to buy food. Recent data from The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have shown that the number of people believing they cannot afford food doubled from 4.2% in 2008 to 9% in 2014. Data from Eurostat show that in 2013, food and non-alcoholic beverage prices in Ireland were 17% higher than the EU average. Moreover, research by Carney and Maitre, using data from the Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC), found that one in ten people are living in food poverty in Ireland. Food poverty is defined as the inability to have an adequate and nutritious diet due to issues of affordability and access to food. This has related effects on health, culture and social participation. The 2013 data from the Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC) show that 1.4 million people, almost 31% of the population, suffer from deprivation. This means that they are unable to afford two items from a list of 11 very basic items (of which one is not being able to eat a meal with meat, chicken, fish or a vegetarian equivalent every second day). The highest levels of deprivation are experienced by lone parents (63%), unemployed people (55%) and people not at work because of illness or disability (53%). The experience of the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice (VPSJ) is that expenditure on food tends to be one of the least important considerations when households are dealing with competing demands on an inadequate income. A Minimum Essential Standard of Living (MESL) is derived from a negotiated consensus on what people believe is a minimum standard. It is a standard of living that meets an individual’s or a household’s physical, psychological and social needs. This is calculated by identifying the goods and services required by different household types in order to meet their needs. While an MESL is based on needs, not wants, it is a standard of living below which nobody should be expected to live. This report focuses on food, one of the 16 elements of the Minimum Essential Standard of Living (MESL) data. It is based on a methodology called Consensual Budget Standards (CBS). The report is presented in the context of increasing concerns about the issue of food poverty in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) and an increase in the number of people reporting that they do not have enough money to buy food. Recent data from The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have shown that the number of people believing they cannot afford food doubled from 4.2% in 2008 to 9% in 2014. Data from Eurostat show that in 2013, food and non-alcoholic beverage prices in Ireland were 17% higher than the EU average. Moreover, research by Carney and Maitre, using data from the Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC), found that one in ten people are living in food poverty in Ireland. Food poverty is defined as the inability to have an adequate and nutritious diet due to issues of affordability and access to food. This has related effects on health, culture and social participation. The 2013 data from the Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC) show that 1.4 million people, almost 31% of the population, suffer from deprivation. This means that they are unable to afford two items from a list of 11 very basic items (of which one is not being able to eat a meal with meat, chicken, fish or a vegetarian equivalent every second day). The highest levels of deprivation are experienced by lone parents (63%), unemployed people (55%) and people not at work because of illness or disability (53%). The experience of the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice (VPSJ) is that expenditure on food tends to be one of the least important considerations when households are dealing with competing demands on an inadequate income. - See more at: http://www.safefood.eu/Publications/Research-reports/The-cost-of-a-healthy-food-basket.aspx#sthash.RiBpj5no.dpuf A Minimum Essential Standard of Living (MESL) is derived from a negotiated consensus on what people believe is a minimum standard. It is a standard of living that meets an individual’s or a household’s physical, psychological and social needs. This is calculated by identifying the goods and services required by different household types in order to meet their needs. While an MESL is based on needs, not wants, it is a standard of living below which nobody should be expected to live. This report focuses on food, one of the 16 elements of the Minimum Essential Standard of Living (MESL) data. It is based on a methodology called Consensual Budget Standards (CBS). The report is presented in the context of increasing concerns about the issue of food poverty in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) and an increase in the number of people reporting that they do not have enough money to buy food. Recent data from The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have shown that the number of people believing they cannot afford food doubled from 4.2% in 2008 to 9% in 2014. Data from Eurostat show that in 2013, food and non-alcoholic beverage prices in Ireland were 17% higher than the EU average. Moreover, research by Carney and Maitre, using data from the Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC), found that one in ten people are living in food poverty in Ireland. Food poverty is defined as the inability to have an adequate and nutritious diet due to issues of affordability and access to food. This has related effects on health, culture and social participation. The 2013 data from the Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC) show that 1.4 million people, almost 31% of the population, suffer from deprivation. This means that they are unable to afford two items from a list of 11 very basic items (of which one is not being able to eat a meal with meat, chicken, fish or a vegetarian equivalent every second day). The highest levels of deprivation are experienced by lone parents (63%), unemployed people (55%) and people not at work because of illness or disability (53%). The experience of the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice (VPSJ) is that expenditure on food tends to be one of the least important considerations when households are dealing with competing demands on an inadequate income. - See more at: http://www.safefood.eu/Publications/Research-reports/The-cost-of-a-healthy-food-basket.aspx#sthash.RiBpj5no.dpuf A Minimum Essential Standard of Living (MESL) is derived from a negotiated consensus on what people believe is a minimum standard. It is a standard of living that meets an individual’s or a household’s physical, psychological and social needs. This is calculated by identifying the goods and services required by different household types in order to meet their needs. While an MESL is based on needs, not wants, it is a standard of living below which nobody should be expected to live. This report focuses on food, one of the 16 elements of the Minimum Essential Standard of Living (MESL) data. It is based on a methodology called Consensual Budget Standards (CBS). The report is presented in the context of increasing concerns about the issue of food poverty in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) and an increase in the number of people reporting that they do not have enough money to buy food. Recent data from The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have shown that the number of people believing they cannot afford food doubled from 4.2% in 2008 to 9% in 2014. Data from Eurostat show that in 2013, food and non-alcoholic beverage prices in Ireland were 17% higher than the EU average. Moreover, research by Carney and Maitre, using data from the Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC), found that one in ten people are living in food poverty in Ireland. Food poverty is defined as the inability to have an adequate and nutritious diet due to issues of affordability and access to food. This has related effects on health, culture and social participation. The 2013 data from the Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC) show that 1.4 million people, almost 31% of the population, suffer from deprivation. This means that they are unable to afford two items from a list of 11 very basic items (of which one is not being able to eat a meal with meat, chicken, fish or a vegetarian equivalent every second day). The highest levels of deprivation are experienced by lone parents (63%), unemployed people (55%) and people not at work because of illness or disability (53%). The experience of the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice (VPSJ) is that expenditure on food tends to be one of the least important considerations when households are dealing with competing demands on an inadequate income. - See more at: http://www.safefood.eu/Publications/Research-reports/The-cost-of-a-healthy-food-basket.aspx#sthash.RiBpj5no.dpuf

Health And Social Care Inequalities Monitoring System: First Update Bulletin 2004 (PDF 273 KB)

The Inequalities Monitoring System comprises a basket of indicators which are monitored over time to assess area differences in morbidity, utilisation of and access to health and social care services in Northern Ireland. Inequalities between the 20% most deprived electoral wards and Northern Ireland as a whole are measured with deprived areas identified from an update of the Noble Income domain for current ward boundaries. Results for 20% most rural areas were also compared against Northern Ireland overall using population density from the 2001 Census of Population as a measure of rurality. This report is the first annual update of the baseline results presented in Chapter 8 of Equality and Inequalities in Health and Social care in Northern Ireland – A Statistical Overview (DHSSPS 2004) which focused on 2001/2002. The morbidity and utilisation data in this report are the latest available while the locations of services for the accessibility analysis will be updated in subsequent years åÊ

Health and Social Care Inequalities Monitoring System (PDF 273 KB)

The Inequalities Monitoring System comprises a basket of indicators which are monitored over time to assess area differences in morbidity, utilisation of and access to health and social care services in Northern Ireland. Inequalities between the 20% most deprived electoral wards and Northern Ireland as a whole are measured with deprived areas identified from an update of the Noble Income domain for current ward boundaries. Results for 20% most rural areas were also compared against Northern Ireland overall using population density from the 2001 Census of Population as a measure of rurality. This report is the firståÊ annual update of the baseline results presented in Chapter 8 of Equality and Inequalities in Health and Social care in Northern Ireland – A Statistical Overview (DHSSPS 2004) which focused on 2001/2002. The morbidity and utilisation data in this report are the latest available while the locations of services for the accessibility analysis will be updated in subsequent years. åÊ åÊ

Address by Michea¡l Martin to the Conference - Legislating for Tobacco Free Society

Thank you Chairman I would like to extend a warm welcome to our keynote speakers, David Byrne of the European Commission, Derek Yach from the World Health Organisation, and Paul Quinn representing Congressman Marty Meehan who sends his apologies. When we include the speakers who will address later sessions, this is, undoubtedly, one of the strongest teams that have been assembled on tobacco control in Europe. The very strength of the team underlines what I see as a shift – a very necessary shift – in the way we perceive the tobacco issue. For the last twenty years, we have lived out a paradox. It isn´t a social side issue. I make no apology for the bluntness of what I´m saying, and will come back, a little later, to the radicalism I believe we need to bring – nationally – to this issue. For starters, though, I want to lay it on the line that what we´re talking about is an epidemic as deadly as any suffered by human kind throughout the centuries. Slower than some of those epidemics in its lethal action, perhaps. But an epidemic, nonetheless. According to the World Health Organisation tobacco accounted for just over 3 million annual deaths in 1990, rising to 4.023 million annual deaths in 1998. The numbers of deaths due to tobacco will rise to 8.4 million in 2020 and reach roughly 10 million annually by 2030. This is quite simply ghastly. Tobacco kills. It kills in many different ways. It kills increasing numbers of women. It does its damage directly and indirectly. For children, much of the damage comes from smoking by adults where children live, study, play and work. The very least we should be able to offer every child is breathable air. Air that doesn´t do them damage. We´re now seeing a global public health response to the tobacco epidemic. The Tobacco Free Initiative launched by the World Health Organisation was matched by significant tobacco control initiatives throughout the world. During this conference we will hear about the experiences our speakers had in driving these initiatives. This Tobacco Free Initiative poses unique challenges to our legal frameworks at both national and international levels; in particular it raises challenges about the legal context in which tobacco products are traded and asks questions about the impact of commercial speech especially on children, and the extent of the limitations that should be imposed on it. Politicians, supported by economists and lawyers as well as the medical profession, must continue to explore and develop this context to find innovative ways to wrap public health considerations around the trade in tobacco products – very tightly. We also have the right to demand a totally new paradigm from the tobacco industry. Bluntly, the tobacco industry plays the PR game at its cynical worst. The industry sells its products without regard to the harm these products cause. At the same time, to gain social acceptance, it gives donations, endowments and patronage to high profile events and people. Not good enough. This model of behaviour is no longer acceptable in a modern society. We need one where the industry integrates social responsibility and accountability into its day-to-day activities. We have waited for this change in behaviour from the tobacco industry for many decades. Unfortunately the documents disclosed during litigation in the USA and from other sources make very depressing reading; it is clear from them that any trust society placed in the tobacco industry in the past to address the health problems associated with its products was misplaced. This industry appears to lack the necessary leadership to guide it towards just and responsible action. Instead, it chooses evasion, deception and at times illegal activity to protect its profits at any price and to avoid its responsibilities to society and its customers. It has engaged in elaborate ´spin´ to generate political tolerance, scientific uncertainty and public acceptance of its products. Legislators must act now. I see no reason why the global community should continue to wait. Effective legal controls must be laid on this errant industry. We should also keep these controls under review at regular intervals and if they are failing to achieve the desired outcomes we should be prepared to amend them. In Ireland, as Minister for Health and Children, I launched a comprehensive tobacco control policy entitled “Towards a Tobacco Free Society“. OTT?Excessive?Unrealistic? On the contrary – I believe it to be imperative and inevitable. I honestly hold that, given the range of fatal diseases caused by tobacco use we have little alternative but to pursue the clear objective of creating a tobacco free society. Aiming at a tobacco free society means ensuring public and political opinion are properly informed. It requires help to be given to smokers to break the addiction. It demands that people are protected against environmental tobacco smoke and children are protected from any inducement to experiment with this product. Over the past year we have implemented a number of measures which will support these objectives; we have established an independent Office of Tobacco Control, we have introduced free nicotine replacement therapy for low-income earners, we have extended our existing prohibitions on tobacco advertising to the print media with some minor derogations for international publications. We have raised the legal age at which a person can be sold tobacco products to eighteen years. We have invested substantially more funds in health promotion activities and we have mounted sustained information campaigns. We have engaged in sponsorship arrangements, which are new and innovative for public bodies. I have provided health boards with additional resources to let them mount a sustained inspection and enforcement service. Health boards will engage new Directors of Tobacco Control responsible for coordinating each health board´s response and for liasing with the Tobacco Control Agency I set up earlier this year. Most recently, I have published a comprehensive Bill – The Public Health (Tobacco) Bill, 2001. This Bill will, among other things, end all forms of product display and in-store advertising and will require all retailers to register with the new Tobacco Control Agency. Ten packs of cigarettes will be banned and transparent and independent testing procedures of tobacco products will be introduced. Enforcement officers will be given all the necessary powers to ensure there is full compliance with the law. On smoking in public places we will extend the existing areas covered and it is proposed that I, as Minister for Health and Children, will have the powers to introduce further prohibitions in public places such as pubs and the work place. I will also provide for the establishment of a Tobacco Free Council to advise and assist on an ongoing basis. I believe the measures already introduced and those additional ones proposed in the Bill have widespread community support. In fact, you´re going to hear a detailed presentation from the MRBI which will amply illustrate the extent of this support. The great thing is that the support comes from smokers and non-smokers alike. Bottom line, Ladies and Gentlemen, is that we are at a watershed. As a society (if you´ll allow me to play with a popular phrase) we´ve realised it´s time to ´wake up and smell the cigarettes.´ Smell them. See them for what they are. And get real about destroying their hold on our people. The MRBI survey makes it clear that the single strongest weapon we have when it comes to preventing the habit among young people is price. Simple as that. Price. Up to now, the fear of inflation has been a real impediment to increasing taxes on tobacco. It sounds a serious, logical argument. Until you take it out and look at it a little more closely. Weigh it, as it were, in two hands. I believe – and I believe this with a great passion – that we must take cigarettes out of the equation we use when awarding wage increases. I am calling on IBEC and ICTU, on employers and trade unions alike, to move away from any kind of tolerance of a trade that is killing our citizens. At one point in industrial history, cigarettes were a staple of the workingman´s life. So it was legitimate to include them in the ´basket´ of goods that goes to make up the Consumer Price Index. It isn´t legitimate to include them any more. Today, I´m saying that society collectively must take the step to remove cigarettes from the basket of normality, from the list of elements which constitute necessary consumer spending. I´m saying: “We can no longer delude ourselves. We must exclude cigarettes from the considerations we address in central wage bargaining. We must price cigarettes out of the reach of the children those cigarettes will kill.” Right now, in the monthly Central Statistics Office reports on consumer spending, the figures include cigarettes. But – right down at the bottom of the page – there´s another figure. Calculated without including cigarettes. I believe that if we continue to use the first figure as our constant measure, it will be an indictment of us as legislators, as advocates for working people, as public health professionals. If, on the other hand, we move to the use of the second figure, we will be sending out a message of startling clarity to the nation. We will be saying “We don´t count an addictive, killer drug as part of normal consumer spending.” Taking cigarettes out of the basket used to determine the Consumer Price Index will take away the inflation argument. It will not be easy, in its implications for the social partners. But it is morally inescapable. We must do it. Because it will help us stop the killer that is tobacco. If we can do it, we will give so much extra strength to health educators and the new Tobacco Control Association. This new organisation of young people who already have branches in over fifteen counties, is represented here today. The young adults who make up its membership are well placed to advise children of the dangers of tobacco addiction in a way that older generations cannot. It would strengthen their hand if cigarettes move – in price terms – out of the easy reach of our children Finally, I would like to commend so many public health advocates who have shown professional and indeed personal courage in their commitment to this critical public health issue down through the years. We need you to continue to challenge and confront this grave public health problem and to repudiate the questionable science of the tobacco industry. The Research Institute for a Tobacco Free Society represents a new and dynamic form of partnership between government and civil society. It will provide an effective platform to engage and mobilise the many different professional and academic skills necessary to guide and challenge us. I wish the conference every success.

Call for Submissions: White Paper on Universal Health Insurance - Supporting Documents

  The Department of Health has published a White Paper on Universal Health Insurance. The White Paper sets out in detail the elements of the proposed Universal Health Insurance model for Ireland. As such, it provides detail on the overall design of the model, the proposed system for deciding on the standard package of services and the financing mechanisms for the system. This is a most fundamental reform of the health system and we recognise the importance of consulting extensively and inclusively with all interested parties.  It is important to seek your views on the policy as it is set out in the White Paper, and we view this as a valuable opportunity for citizens to contribute to the development of policy on the future of their health system.  Therefore, we would like to hear from any individual, group, organisation or other body that wishes to contribute to the consultation on the White Paper. In particular, but not limited to, we would welcome your views on the following issues: A consultation document setting out a number of key questions under each of the above headings has been developed and can be downloaded here. There is an opportunity at the end of the document for views or comments on other aspects of the White Paper to be provided. Alternatively, additional views or comments can be sent as an email or hard copy to the addresses below. It is intended to establish a separate independent Expert Commission to examine the issues around the basket of services to be provided under UHI and within the overall health system. The Minister will announce details of the Commission in the near future. Therefore, it would be useful if the submissions on the White Paper refrained from commenting in detail on the services to be provided under UHI. Views on the basket of services will be sought by the Commission when it commences its consultation process. The White Paper can be downloaded here, and two further supporting documents Background Policy Paper on Designing the Future Health Basket and Background Policy Paper on Raising Resources for Universal Health Insurance, which informed the development of the White Paper are also available for download. Links to other supporting documentation that informed the White Paper are also provided below. Submissions can be submitted: By E-mail to: uhiwhitepaper@health.gov.ie By Post to: UHI White Paper UHI UnitDepartment of HealthRoom 7.26Hawkins HouseHawkins StreetDublin 2 The closing date for submissions is close of business 28th May 2014 and will be strictly adhered to. All submissions received will be subject to the Freedom of Information Acts 1997 & 2003 and may be released in response to a Freedom of Information request. Download the consultation document (MS Word) (From the website of the Health Research Board) Integration of health and wellbeing services with general health services The integration of health and social care services

Eye screening for diabetics - prevents blindness

Diabetes is a common condition affecting around 69,000 people in Northern Ireland. One of the possible complications of diabetes is a condition called diabetic retinopathy, which can cause sight loss and blindness. Retinopathy causes damage to the tiny blood vessels (capillaries) that nourish the retina, the tissues in the back of the eye that deal with light. This can seriously affect vision.Research shows that if retinopathy is identified early, for example through retinal screening, and treated appropriately, blindness can be prevented in the majority of people with diabetes, both type 1 and type 2.Screening programmeIn Northern Ireland, a diabetic retinopathy screening programme (DRSP), run by the Public Health Agency, has been put in place to screen all eligible people with diabetes aged 12 years and over. Dr Bernadette Cullen, Consultant in Public Health Medicine, PHA, said: "Screening detects problems early and allows appropriate treatment to be offered. It is vital that everyone with diabetes attends diabetic retinopathy screening when it is offered. Early detection of potential problems offers a very real opportunity to intervene and, with appropriate treatment, can prevent blindness in the majority of those at risk."The screening testThe screening test involves photographs being taken of the back of each eye, using a special camera. The test is painless and takes about 15 minutes. If the person is over 50 years of age, they will need to have drops put in their eyes about 15 minutes before the test to dilate their pupils.The photographs are sent to the regional screening centre for analysis by trained graders. Results will show whether patients require further referral for assessment or treatment by hospital eye services (HES). If this is not required, screening will be offered again the following year.GPs are informed of all results and if the patient is under the care of a diabetologist, they too will be informed. Patients are informed of results by their GP and if they need an urgent referral, protocols are in place to ensure this happens.Many people with diabetes attend their optometrist (optician) on a regular basis to have a sight test for glasses. It is important they continue to do this - this test is free to people with diabetes. It is also vital that people with diabetes attend for diabetic retinopathy screening when invited, regardless of how or where their diabetes is treated, or whether they visit a hospital consultant/GP for their diabetic care.Patients are invited to screening via their GP practice. An information leaflet to help patients make an informed decision to attend for screening is also sent. This can be accessed via the PHA website: www.publichealth.hscni.net.

Picnic perfection

Far too often when we pack the picnic basket we leave behind the good habits that keep us safe from food poisoning at home. Here are a few simple tips to help you avoid potential perils of picnics.

Inequalities in Old Age: The impact of the recession on older people in Ireland, North and South CARDI Grants

Inequalities in Old Age: the impact of the recession on older people in Ireland, North and SouthAbout the research:This research, led by Professor Paddy Hillyard, Emeritus Professor Queen’s University Belfast, was carried out with funding from CARDI’s Grants Programme Call 2. The purpose of the study was to analyse the impact of the recession on older people in Northern Ireland (NI) and the Republic of Ireland (ROI) and the extent to which inequalities within the older population have been affected by the economic crisis.Research Brief:This brief, authored by CARDI staff, is based on the findings of the research project and also contains additional information of interest.Research Team:Professor Paddy Hillyard, Emeritus Professor Queen’s University Belfast - lead researcher;Dr Francesca Lundstr̦m, Research Consultant;Dr Demi Patsios, Policy Research Consultant;Sarah Machniewski, Researcher;David Taylor, Chartered Accountant and Management Consultant;Dr Maureen Lyons, Research Manager, School of Social Justice, UCD.Methodology and availability of data:Several methods were used in the research, including:�� a review of relevant literature;����a detailed analysis of many databases relevant to older people’s incomes and lives;��building a model to assess the impact of the recession on older people;surveys of financial advisers in voluntary, private and public sectors;��six focus groups, three each in NI and RoI.Availability of data:Despite the huge amount of information which is officially collected and published in NI and RoI, very little is directly comparable. ��The development of a mechanism to encourage the production of more comparable data North and South would be very beneficial.��For example, this study identified a basket of 25 factors that can be used to compare the living standards of older people in NI and RoI and to monitor changes in future yearsTo access the full report please click on the following link:Inequalities in Old Age: the impact of the recession on older people in Ireland, North and SouthPlease find the presentation from the launch below:Inequalities, Pensions and the Recession by Prof Paddy Hillyard, Queen’s University Belfast and Dr Demi Patsios, Policy Research Consultant, Dr Francesca Lundstr̦m, Research Consultant.��������

Indicator 11.9 - Data - Prevalence of obesity in reception year pupils

This indicator is part of the London Health Observatory's Health Inequaliies Basket of Indicators.

Newborn Hearing Screening (English and translations)

Your baby will be given a series of routine health checks in the first few weeks of life. This will include a hearing screen. The hearing screen uses a quick simple test to check the hearing of all newborn babies. � .