After the House GOP pulled its nearly universally reviled proposed replacement for the Affordable Care Act, I confess I celebrated. There was really nothing of merit to the plan.

Yet we can’t forget that our health care system remains deeply flawed, especially for women, and I should know: I’ve spent the last year trying and failing to get a mammogram.


It’s not that I revel in the idea of having my breasts smashed between two unyielding plates of glass. I’m actually not looking forward to this appointment whatsoever. But, given that I am (a) over 40 years of age, (b) have a family history of breast cancer, (c) know my own mother’s cancer was caught by a regular annual screening, and (d) have an odd spot on my left breast my doctor would like to keep tabs on, I’ve gotten into the habit of having the procedure done twice a year.

[quote position=”left” is_quote=”true”]I have stellar insurance and an odd spot on my left breast.[/quote]

But right now, despite having what’s widely considered stellar health insurance that would happily cover the vast majority of the costs associated with these procedures, I cannot get an appointment. Let me explain.

I was scheduled for my ordered mammogram about 14 months ago. It took a few months to get the appointment, even with my history, but, in my experience, that is par for the course. Unfortunately, I had to cancel that appointment the week before because of an unexpected work trip. Luckily, the nice folks at the facility penciled me in for an appointment about 10 days later.

Little did I know, it would be 10 days too late. I went to my appointment, only to learn that the order for the mammogram had expired. The woman at the front desk apologized profusely, but they would not be able to offer me the procedure that day. Instead, she sent me home with the instructions to call my gynecologist for a new order and told me to immediately call the main scheduling line to book a new appointment. Never mind the fact that gynecology and radiology are literally just two hallways down from one another at the facility. They apparently can’t talk to one another. It would have to be done by phone.

I tend to at least try to follow instructions when it comes to my health, so I did exactly as directed. But, alas, I would soon learn that a phone call would not do the trick. My OB-GYN could not update my mammogram order. Unfortunately, it had been too long since my last “well-woman” exam. A new order would be impossible unless I came in for another old-fashioned, touchy-feely breast exam. The nurse was sorry, but the system simply wouldn’t allow it. Would it be too much trouble to come back in for a 10-minute visit?

It would not have been—except even 10 minutes with a popular OB-GYN can be hard to come by. The scheduling nurse remained apologetic. But apparently only enough to squeeze me in for my new appointment nearly four months later.

[quote position=”full” is_quote=”true”]Some might say a mammogram simply isn’t worth the effort. But they don’t have my mother, a breast cancer survivor, regularly nagging them.[/quote]

After my doctor manually checked my breasts, she wrote up a new order for the mammogram. I knew to expect a six-week wait, minimum, to get back on the radiology schedule. But I tried to take it in stride. That is, until I was informed that my insurance would no longer be accepted at the doctor of my choice—thanks to cost negotiation issues between the facility and my insurance company. Not for a mammogram or anything else, for that matter. And, no, so sorry, that mammogram order would not be good at any other facility. I’d have to find a new OB-GYN and start from scratch.

At this point, some might think the universe is telling them that a mammogram simply isn’t worth the effort—they can just make do with regular self-checks at home. But they don’t have my mother, a breast cancer survivor, regularly nagging them to get in there and get it done.

So I found a new OB-GYN. Someone who is covered by my insurance. Here’s how it goes: I wait for my appointment and am finally handed a new and quite official-looking paper order for a mammogram with a quite strong admonishment from my doctor to schedule my screening immediately. I had every intention of obeying.

[quote position=”right” is_quote=”true”]Even 10 minutes with a popular OB-GYN can be hard to come by.[/quote]

Except when I call to schedule my mammogram, I learn that my order, despite its authoritative look, is not valid. It is missing an ICD-9 code and a checked box for “left, right, or bilateral.” I will have to get myself a new order before I can be scheduled. Not only that, but I’m told by a very unsympathetic voice on the other end of a phone line, radiology will not give me that mammogram, despite the new order or the length of time since my last screening—unless they get all of the films from my old facility, a task that will require getting a DVD burned in person.

I’m currently working on that last part. First, I have to call my new facility back and figure out what format they need. No one seems entirely sure, and I’ve gone unchecked all this time. There is one Planned Parenthood facility on the other side of town, and going there may be what I end up doing. But I shouldn’t have to—by making an appointment there, I’ll be taking a spot away from someone with lesser/no insurance. And unless I plan to continue going there in the future, it breaks my continuity of care.

I’d like to tell you that my experience is an anomaly, but as I’ve recounted this experience to other women I know, I’m learning that it is not. I shudder to think of the hoops that women with lesser means may have to go through to get this routine check, especially since we well know that catching cancer early is so critical to good outcomes, both medically and financially.

It seems nearly everyone has an opinion on women’s health—especially right now. A mammogram may seem insignificant, an inconvenience, really. Certainly, Senator Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican, thought so little of them that he callously quipped, “I wouldn’t want to lose my mammograms,” when a reporter asked him about potential cuts to “essential health benefits” in the now-pulled American Health Care Act proposal.

Though he’s since apologized, I still don’t get the joke. A year is plenty of time for that spot to turn into something more sinister. It’s not a joke for my mother, whose cancer was caught early by a routine screening. It’s not a joke for other friends who have suffered their own bouts with breast cancer, who know all too well what it feels like to wonder if their insurance will cover all or only part of their cancer treatments—let alone important checks and screenings. It’s also not a joke to the families whose loved ones succumbed to the disease, leaving only their memory and, too often, crushing medical debt behind.

That’s why I’ll continue to call and pester and beg until I get my mammogram. Not only to shut my mother up—though that part certainly won’t hurt—but because it shouldn’t be this hard to do such a simple thing that is so critical to my long-term health.

  • Getting outside despite your 9‑to‑5 job can improve your mental health – here’s how to spend time in nature during and around working hours
    Photo credit: Todd Lookingbill Urban parks are great places to soak in the outdoors without planning an elaborate trip.

    The modern workday unfolds largely indoors. Long hours spent commuting, sitting in meetings and staring at screens can make time outdoors feel like a luxury. Finding time for nature in an already packed workday can feel impossible, especially if you think nature only “counts” when it involves hiking boots and camping gear.

    But a growing body of research suggests that nature’s benefits don’t require an exotic vacation getaway or weekend adventure. Even brief, routine interactions with green space can reduce stressimprove mood and promote overall well-being.

    I spent the spring of 2026 teaching and studying urban landscapes in Denmark, a country consistently ranked among the happiest in the world. I expected to find thoughtfully designed parks, courtyards and bicycle paths. I did see those things. But what surprised me was how seamlessly people moved through those spaces as part of their ordinary lives.

    These green spaces weren’t aspirational destinations, reserved for special occasions. They were places to eat lunch, meet friends, walk through on the way home from work, or just pause for a few quiet moments. Getting outside seemed a part of the natural rhythm of the day.

    Denmark‘s outdoor culture stemmed not only from the creation of a meticulously planned network of parks, but also from the way green spaces were fundamentally woven into the routines of everyday life.

    A wooden bench in an outdoor park
    A wooden bench in one of Copenhagen’s forest therapy parks invites people to sit and soak in their surroundings. Todd Lookingbill

    Everyday parks, everyday benefits

    Evidence linking time spent in nature with health benefits has increasingly shaped public policy. In the U.S., for example, the National Park Service’s Healthy Parks Healthy People and ParkRx initiatives reflect a growing recognition that access to parks contributes to well-being.

    For many Americans, however, the word “park” brings to mind iconic national parks such as Yellowstone, Yosemite or the Grand Canyon. Yet visiting parks of all kinds can improve your overall health. The greatest public health value may come not from the parks people visit once in a lifetime but from those close enough to visit again and again.

    My own research on Civil War battlefield parks illustrates this point. These are parks that were established to commemorate historic conflicts that were frequently fought on the fringes of major metropolitan areas. Consequently, many of these landscapes preserve forests, grasslands and trails within easy reach of millions of Americans.

    Because they’re accessible without extensive travel or planning, they can become places people return to repeatedly – such as during a lunch break or after work. Reframing the notion of “park” opens up millions of acres of land for everyday uses.

    Designing for everyday nature

    At the University of Richmond, where I work, a stream restoration projects became an opportunity to rethink how nature fits into campus life. Landscape architects designed an Eco-Corridor, as the project became known. It has walking paths, gathering spaces and seating areas for quiet reflection alongside flowing streams and native vegetation.

    The result was a landscape that supports biodiversity and improves water quality while also creating places for students, faculty and staff to walk between meetings, eat lunch alfresco or spend a few quiet moments outside during the workday. Its ongoing care depends on an army of volunteers who spread mulch, remove invasive plants and tend the community garden. For these volunteers, stewardship between classes and meetings meant another opportunity to interact with nature.

    A group of young people walking along a concrete path lined with trees and shrubbery.
    Students walk through the ‘Eco-Corridor’ at the University of Richmond. Haley Herrmann

    What we learned was that nature doesn’t have to compete with work, studying or everyday responsibilities. Thoughtful landscape design can make spending time outdoors, even if only for a few short minutes, feel like a normal part of the day.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • New Russian research suggests that the human lifespan could be up to 156 years
    Photo credit: CanvaResearchers found what's preventing us from living longer.
    ,

    New Russian research suggests that the human lifespan could be up to 156 years

    Humans can live much longer if certain barriers are addressed.

    According to the Guinness Book of World Records, the oldest person lived to the ripe age of 122 years old. Such a lifespan is an incredible feat, but what if the average person could beat that record by 34 years? Recent research done in Russia has led scientists to believe that the average human lifespan could be up to 156 years.

    The researchers at Skoltech Biomed Technologies Center developed a mathematical model that allowed them to “switch on” a variety of aging mechanisms. This allowed them to calculate a human’s lifespan where mortality risk never increased with age. After experimenting with different scenarios and conditions, they found the biggest barriers to longevity were caused by non-renewable tissues and somatic mutations.

    What are these barriers against longer life?

    Somatic mutations are DNA changes within a cell. They accumulate over time during a human’s life and cannot be reversed with any existing therapy. These DNA errors that pile up in our cells contribute to the aging process.

    Many human organs like the liver and skin continually replace cells and regrow damaged portions of themselves. However, there are two organs that can’t do this: the brain and the heart. Brain tissue (neurons) and heart tissue (cardiomyocytes) cannot regenerate. This proves to be the most prominent biological limit that shortens our lifespans. This explains why issues like dementia and heart disease are prominent causes of death and morbidity later in life. Since those organs’ tissues don’t replace damaged cells, they’re prone to irrevocably decline over time.

    “The key finding of the study is the discovery of substantial differences between tissue types. Neurons and cardiomyocytes, which lack the ability to divide, turned out to be the main limiting factors: when all other causes of aging are eliminated, somatic mutations alone reduce the theoretical median lifespan from 1,759 years (for a hypothetical non-aging human organism) to 156 years,” said Evgeny Efimov, a research intern at the Skoltech Biomed Technologies Center, researcher at AIRI, and one of the key authors of the study.

    This suggests that somatic mutations and DNA damage is what ultimately prevents humans from living indefinitely, even if our brains and hearts regenerated cells like other organs.

    So what’s next?

    Now knowing these biological limitations, the researchers hope to study other areas of aging impacting the human lifespan that could plausibly be reversed. This includes mitochondrial dysfunction, telomere shortening, epigenetic drift, and loss of proteostasis. 

    The hope is to have a clearer priority list of issues for future therapies to tackle. This is not just to possibly extend life, but to improve lives in general. By developing a fully comprehensive theory of aging, Skoltech hopes to pinpoint which aspects of aging are within our scope to address. After all, thoroughly studying each puzzle piece that makes up human life gives us a better understanding of the whole.

    Of course, other impactful factors in a person’s lifespan can be addressed today. As most know, things like diet, sleep, and exercise are among them. A person’s living environment can also negatively impact their lifespan if it doesn’t have clean air, access to clean water, and so on.

    For now, the best method for living long is to follow instructions from your physician. Whether you make it to 156 years or not, living well is best for whatever time you’re given.

  • Screen time guidelines for kids and adolescents have shifted as research paints a more nuanced picture
    Photo credit: PeopleImages/iStock via Getty ImagesWhat kids are doing on tablets seems to matter more than how long they use them.

    Concerns surrounding young people’s screen time are widespread.

    Australia became the first country to ban social media for users under 16 in December 2025, and DenmarkFrance and the U.K. have since announced similar restrictions to begin this year.

    In the U.S., as of mid-2026, more than 30 states have passed laws banning or restricting cellphones in K–12 classrooms; in 2023, the U.S. surgeon general issued a formal advisory on social media and children’s and adolescents’ mental health; and bestselling books tell parents that smartphones are “rewiring” their children’s brains.

    These concerns and policies are part of a quickly changing national and international conversation around how young people spend time on screens and its relationship to their overall health and development. My reading of the mounting research on this issue across disciplines is that the popular narrative blaming screens and smartphones for an adolescent mental health crisis runs well ahead of the current evidence.

    I study adolescent digital media use and its influence on social, emotional and academic outcomes. A growing body of research suggests that one-size-fits-all solutions are not the answer and that managing appropriate use of digital media needs to take into account a child’s developmental milestones, how parents and adults around them use media, and the ways kids use it to connect and learn with friends and family.

    Screen time: From monolith to multifaceted

    Wide adoption of digital media and the internet broadened the range of experiences young people could have online. At the same time, the digital age introduced newfound uncertainties. As with the advent of radio, comic books and arcades, adults worried about how children might interact with or be affected by internet use.

    In response, the American Academy of Pediatrics first recommended in 1999 that parents and caregivers keep children under 2 away from screens. In the decades since, professional guidance largely treated children’s media use as a behavior to be mitigated.

    Policies introduced by the academy in 2013 and 2016 continued to advise that school-age kids and adolescents – those ages 5 to 18 – be restricted to no more than two hours of “entertainment” screen time a day. The goal was to curb risks associated with heavy media use, among them disrupted sleep, online safety, cyberbullying and physical inactivity.

    Originally created for young people’s engagement with stationary media that tend to be confined to one room or context – for example, watching television – these hourly limits became outdated with the integration of smartphones and other digital devices into everyday life. Compared with watching television, online media was far more difficult to track and define, and more nuanced in its use.

    Developmentally beneficial activities such as educationsocializing and leisure have come to rely on the internet to extend and maintain face-to-face connections. Remote schooling and social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic only accelerated this digitization of daily life.

    In my view, adopting strict time limits and restrictions could pose risks to children’s well-beingautonomy and development, for example, by harming adolescent self-esteem.

    The latest guidelines

    In January 2026, the American Academy of Pediatrics retired its decade-old framework that had largely organized its advice around hourly screen limits. The new policy statement on children, adolescents and digital media diverges from this blanket approach. Instead, it suggests parents consider the larger picture in which this media use exists rather than lumping all screen use together.

    Similar to the World Health Organization’s 2019 guidance for children under 5, the American Academy of Pediatrics still advises that parents avoid screen media for children younger than 18 months. This recommendation is largely because extended use by children by themselves can be problematic for many young children, crowding out important developmental milestones.

    Both the World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics also recommend that when children under 24 months use screens, they should be limited to content and devices that encourage children and caregivers to interact. For ages 2 to 5, screen time – including TV and interactive apps on devices – may be extended to more solo use, provided it’s high-quality digital media designed around learning goals in mathematics and reading. But recreational use should be limited to roughly an hour per day.

    For school-age children and teens, the newest guidance has begun to step away from fixed screen time limits and asks families to weigh online activity in the context of everyday life.

    Doing so recognizes that a child’s digital experiences are shaped by diverse factors rather than the hours spent online. Current guidelines call on caregivers to distinguish among types of media, from television and social media to video games and interacting with artificial intelligence chatbots. They also call for taking into account a child’s individual characteristics, such as their interests and personality, family members’ own use of screens, and the type of content children are spending time on.

    Rethinking screen time

    Moving beyond strict screen time limits includes questioning the kind of digital activities kids and adolescents participate in. Do the activities encourage time spent interacting with others online, which can help young people develop important skills and competencies?

    Scrolling an algorithm-based, auto-playing video feed likely does not equate to the same opportunities as video-chatting with friends, creating digital art or working with teammates in a multiplayer game. Research suggests these different uses relate to development in different ways and can help kids develop varying skill sets pertaining to everyday life and schooling.

    Indeed, a large review of current research found that young people who take part in a range of digital activities, such as browsing the web, online gaming or interacting on social media, show positive associations with social connection, identity exploration, civic participation and learning.

    A woman and two small children look at tablet screen
    Parental involvement in young children’s screen time has developmental benefits. Cultura Creative/Tetra images via Getty Images

    Using these guidelines at home

    The current evidence suggests parents and caregivers are best positioned to be digital instructors. Cutting children off altogether can carry its own risks for social and emotional development. Caregiver mediation of children’s screen time can produce widely different outcomes and effects, depending on whether the guidance is supportive or controlling.

    Considering your own digital media use is the first step: Are family members engaging in problematic or heavy media use that children in the household might emulate? What applications and uses are most common in the family, and what positive or negative effects might they have, depending on the child’s age? How could these digital activities be safely integrated with other everyday experiences to increase their benefit for children? Conversely, what online time might be better spent on face-to-face experiences?

    The American Academy of Pediatrics’ Family Media Plan tool turns these ideas into concrete questions. For example, it recommends working out what each child needs from digital technology, what activities screens might be crowding out, and where their family or household can build in screen-free time. The recommendation is to talk with each child about why they are drawn to particular apps or online activities, what they encounter while browsing, and what might be lost when kids bring phones to gatherings such as mealtimes.

    The debate over young people’s screen time is not going away. But the most up-to-date guidelines, and the growing body of research behind them, make a strong case for a more holistic approach. The guidelines treat digital media as a complex, diverse and evolving environment that children need to learn to navigate in the digital age. The risks and rewards depend, as with any developmental setting, on the child, the content and what online time might be crowding out.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

Explore More Health Stories

Research

New Russian research suggests that the human lifespan could be up to 156 years

Health

Screen time guidelines for kids and adolescents have shifted as research paints a more nuanced picture

Care

ER doctor and mom sets the record straight for parents of kids with e-bikes and e-scooters

Health

May cause joy: The full-spectrum health benefits of dance