fbpx

Death, Violence, Health, and Poverty
in Chicago

By Earl Fredrick, III, MD, MBA

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn

Citation

Fredrick III E. Death, violence, health, and poverty in Chicago. Harvard Public Health Review. Fall 2018;19.

Death, Violence, Health, and Poverty in Chicago

Prologue

I am by any estimation the product of a privileged upbringing. My father is a physician and my mother was an educator, author, and stay at home mom. I grew up on Chicago’s south side through 6th grade before moving to an affluent south suburb. The opportunities, education, and environment I experienced were at the opposite end of the spectrum from those had by people in the neighborhoods I am about to describe. I grew up around mostly white kids, in predominately white neighborhoods, and attended predominately white schools until I went to medical school at Howard University, in Washington D.C.


After my medical training, I worked in predominately African-American communities in and around Chicago’s South Side for 25 years. A decade ago, I began noticing extreme numbers of chronic disease with staggering complications. The intensity of chronic disease morbidity was higher in community hospitals on Chicago’s south side than in the University referral centers where I had previously worked and trained. A couple of years ago, I began to evaluate Medicare discharge data by zip code in Chicago. I found clusters of zip codes on Chicago’s south and west side that had the highest concentrations of cardiovascular, renal, endocrine, neurologic, and HIV disease in the city. This exploration coincided with extensive press on Chicago as a city challenged by violence, especially gun-related violence. The same neighborhoods with extremes of chronic disease also experienced extreme poverty, residential racial segregation, and gun violence. Indeed, there appeared to be a strong link between poverty, poor education, poor health, early death, racial residential segregation, and gun violence in Chicago.

Background

Gun violence in Chicago is a public health emergency largely driven by poverty and inequity. Chicago is known as the city of neighborhoods. Residence in a neighborhood can impact your life expectancy, wealth, health, and the likelihood of encountering gun violence. Segregation drives the persistence of poverty, premature death, and violence in Chicago’s most challenging neighborhoods. An epidemiological approach to assessment and a public health approach to policy and mitigation are desperately needed to address violence in Chicago’s neighborhoods.


Pundits have suggested numerous “solutions” to gun violence in the city. The idea of “solutions” presupposes an understanding of causality. Typical solutions advocated include better neighborhood policing, tougher gun laws, sentencing reform for violent offenders, and expanding prison capacity. Yet all of these “solutions” point to a misunderstanding of the core issues. The purpose of this report is to shift the violent crime paradigm while examining the influence of structural and institutional segregation on health, poverty, and gun violence.


Violent crime is a disease. Attempting to use legal tools to resolve the epidemic misses the point and essential strategies to effect change. When alcoholics were found dead in their jail cells many years ago, alcohol abuse correctly became recognized as a health problem. The public also considered heroin addiction a criminal problem isolated to certain communities. Yet we now recognize opiate use as a public health concern, rather than a law enforcement issue. Similarly, gun violence is a public health problem. Gun violence is also an economic problem. In Chicago, the neighborhood you live in determines your health, wealth, life expectancy, and the likelihood that gun violence will directly affect you. Further, segregation is the core prevailing influence that perpetuates conditions that sustain and ensure ongoing violence in some Chicago neighborhoods.


This study leverages epidemiological tools, defined by the World Health Organization as approaches to study of the distribution and determinants of health-related states or events (including disease), to study the population of Chicago as it relates to violence (gun violence in particular), health, and wealth.

Gun Violence and Its Determinants

Gun violence is a multifactorial concern, not an individual problem, associated with the combined effects of individual, family, school, peer, community, and social risk factors interacting over time beginning in childhood and adolescence.1 From the individual perspective, the most powerful predictor is previous history of violent behavior. Guns result in 33,597 deaths annually in the US according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The majority of these deaths (excluding mass shootings) occur in economically challenged communities with high rates of individuals living at or below the poverty line.


Poverty predicts and is a major confounder of, homicide rates nationally according to the empiric literature. 2 According to the census bureau, 12.4% of the US population lives in poverty. For a family of 4 (2 adults and 2 children under 18 years old ), an income of $24,339 is the Federal poverty level (FPL). The Chicago Tribune noted: “The number of poor people living in neighborhoods with extreme poverty — the ones most likely to have conditions that foster violence — grew 384 percent from 2000 to 2015.”3 This statistic must be taken in the context of root causes and the implications and byproducts of poverty.

Segregation

Racial residential segregation between whites and African Americans in Chicago dates to the Great Migration, which lasted from 1916 to approximately 1970. During that time, African Americans moved from the South to cities in the north. Many families found themselves in small enclaves that accepted Black residents. In Chicago, that meant the city’s south and south-west areas (often referred to as “sides”). Residential segregation was institutionalized through school segregation and redlining. Together, they created structural barriers to homeownership and rental agreements by Black families, essentially limiting local Black migration out of disadvantaged neighborhoods.


Redlining refers to the practice of mortgage lenders and insurers literally placing red lines through non-white neighborhoods, precluding them from accessing mortgages and insurance. The practice began informally in the early 1900s and was codified during the New Deal in the 1930s by the Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC). HOLC developed a color-coded map of the U.S. based on the racial mix to determine insurance and loan risk.4 5 Without access to loans or insurance, African Americans were barred from homeownership, one of the greatest sources of wealth development in the twentieth century. This structural and institutional racism and segregation ensured that  African Americans and other non-whites could not build wealth or resources. The circumstances contributed to economic deprivation and violence in historically minority areas, while limiting the ability of African-Americans and other non-whites to move elsewhere.6 Violence can be understood as a byproduct of hopelessness and multigenerational deprivation, and remains endemic to predominately African-American and non-white neighborhoods in Chicago.

Neighborhood Segregation, Violence, and Health

In Chicago, growing up in certain neighborhoods essentially guarantees a lifetime of poverty and frequent exposure to violence. The Chicago metro area is the third most racially-segregated metro area nationally behind Milwaukee, Wisconsin, New York City, New York, and Newark, New Jersey. Massey and Denton argue in their seminal 1993 treatise, American Apartheid that poverty is concentrated in non-white neighborhoods, not by coincidence but through systematic segregation. Moreover, racial segregation magnifies poverty’s influence within communities of color.7


Racial segregation also impacts the causes of death, life expectancy, birth weight, and infant mortality, and gun-related deaths. Indeed, studies show marked reductions in systolic blood pressure and overall better health outcomes among persons living in less segregated areas.8 9

Causes of Death

The 2014 leading causes of death nationally in declining order of frequency were: 1. Heart Disease; 2. Cancer; 3. Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease; 4. Accidents; and 5. Strokes. Similar leading causes of death, with strokes at the lead, were reported in Illinois in 2014. In Chicago, however, the number one cause of death for persons ages 15-24 and 25-34 was homicide. These groups also were more likely than their counterparts across the country to experience under/unemployment, low educational attainment, community-based trauma and violence, and premature death due to homicide. The question is, are these relationships incidental or causal?


Much of this appears to stem from residential segregation. In 2016, one homicide occurred in each of the three “Whitest” neighborhoods in Chicago (Lakeview 80% White, O’Hare 77% White, and Near North 72% White), while the remaining predominantly white neighborhoods had none (Figure 3). In Chicago’s “Blackest” neighborhoods, homicides ranged from 3 in Riverdale (96% Black) and Burnside (98% Black), to 23 in Chatham (97% Black). Racial segregation also impacts mortality, life expectancy, and Infant mortality. Reductions in exposure to racial residential segregation are associated with reductions in systolic blood pressure[6].

Life Expectancy

Similar trends are seen in terms of life expectancy, which at the national level is 78.1 years for all persons, with women living slightly longer than men, at 80.6 years compared to 75.6 years. In Chicago, life expectancy in 2010 was 79.8 overall. Yet significant variance in life expectancy is associated with median household income in Chicago. Those with a median household income of $49,877 in 2010 had a life expectancy of 75 and 81 years life expectancy. The poorest neighborhoods, however, had a life expectancy of only 71 and 76 years, compared to that of neighborhoods with the highest median incomes, which reported life expectancies between 81 and 90 years of age. On average, lower-income neighborhoods had a life expectancy of 73.5 years compared to higher income neighborhoods, which had a life expectancy of 86 years:  a more than 12-year gap. The neighborhoods with the lowest life expectancies in Chicago are predominantly African American, and 70% have the highest levels of gun violence.

Low Birth Weight and Infant Mortality

Segregation and violence in low-income neighborhoods are also associated with low birth weight (LBW), defined as weight at birth less than 2500 grams, or 5.5 pounds, and infant mortality defined as the probability of dying between birth and 1 year of age. Both LBW and infant mortality are considered measures of population wellbeing, though the CDC often focuses on the individual-level determinants, such as maternal smoking, drinking, lack of weight gain, age, income, low educational attainment, stress, domestic/other abuse, marital status, and so on.


In Chicago’s poorest and most violent neighborhoods, 15-20% of mothers have LBW babies; rates that rival that of the world’s poorest nations, including Ethiopia (20%), Chad (20%), Nigeria (15%), and Benin (15%).10. Moreover, 30% of Chicago neighborhoods with the highest percentage of LBW infants also have the highest rate of gun violence and 40% of neighborhoods with the highest homicide rates also highest rates of LBWs.


Similar trends are seen in terms of infant mortality. From 2005-2011, infant mortality in Chicago overall was 8.1 per 1000 live births. Yet the rates of infant mortality in the city’s poorest communities ranged from 13.4 to 22.6 per 1000 live births — similar to that found in developing nations like Belize and El Salvador (both with infant mortality rates of 13 per 1,000 live births ) and Vanuatu and the Philippines (22 per 1000 live births).11 Age-adjusted gun violence in 40% of these communities had the highest infant mortality rates in the city. These communities also had the lowest median household income (0-$40,000), life expectancy, public services and educational opportunities, and the highest rates of unemployment, overall violence, poverty, and income inequality.12 

Gun-Related Deaths

Firearm violence in Chicago is concentrated in neighborhoods with high levels of unemployment, low median household and per capita income, high infant mortality rates, and low overall life expectancy. From 2015 and 2016, Chicago experienced 58 percent more homicides and 43 percent more non-fatal shootings.


The incidence of violent crime and gun violence in Chicago is markedly disparate across neighborhoods.


The Metropolitan Planning Council in partnership with the Urban Institute recently described segregation as a cost to all Chicagoans. In their 2017 publication, The Cost of Segregation, they describe Chicago as having the 5th highest African American-White segregation and economic segregation combined of 100 US cities studied1. They estimate the cost of Chicago’s variance from median levels of segregation at $4.4 billion for the region and $2982 per person for African Americans. Segregation costs futures, lives, and money. Chicago is historically perhaps the poster child for institutional racism, systemic segregation that began in the early 1900s during The Great Migration.  As African Americans migrated from the South in search of jobs, they were isolated in South Side neighborhoods and ultimately sky scraping housing projects. Martin Luther King Jr. came to Chicago in 1966 to march for fair housing. King remarked: “I have seen many demonstrations in the South, but I have never seen anything so hostile and as hateful as I’ve seen here today,” he said. King took a stone to the head and was rushed past several South Side hospitals and taken to Cook County hospital to be treated for his head wound.


Chicago has created marginalized communities marred by violence and gun-related deaths, fueled by institutional racism and systemic racial and economic segregation. There are not enough laws, police, or jails, to arrest this public health crisis.


Among neighborhoods that reported the highest concentrations of poverty between 2005 to 2009, all were predominantly African American and one-half had the highest homicide rates based on age-adjusted data per 100,000 persons (Table 1). Chicago’s richest and predominantly White neighborhoods (Lakeview, O’Hare, and Near North) each reported one murder annually between 2005-2009. Neighborhoods with lower incomes and larger African-American populations reported significantly higher numbers homicides, ranging from 3 (in Riverdale and Burnside) to 23 (Chatham) annually.

Legal Determinants

Again, we are confronted with the notion of causality. Could stricter laws and sentencing guidelines reduce violence and improve other determinants of health?  The simple answer is no. Spikes in mass incarceration has led only made Chicago’s most vulnerable communities more dangerous.


In Chicago, neighborhoods define mass incarceration in terms of dollars spent and lives lost. Chicago’s “million dollar blocks,” city blocks where a million dollars or more is spent on incarceration, occur with alarming frequency in neighborhoods with high unemployment, high gun violence, and low life expectancy. The million dollar neighborhoods for 2015 were (in order of spending on incarceration): Austin $550 million, Humboldt Park $293 million, North Lawndale $241 million, West Englewood $197 million, and Roseland $159 million. Why have the affected neighborhoods become more dangerous? Sampson and Loeffler contend that mass incarceration can be systematically mapped based on social characteristics: the combination of poverty, unemployment, family disruption, and racial isolation. The result is a negative feedback loop that traps certain communities in a state of perpetual crime and poverty13

Conclusion

Applying population-based epidemiological analysis to the gun violence issue in Chicago, a few things are clear. We are on a path that will sustain and deepen levels of violence due to oppressive conditions. Oppression and despair invariably result from poverty, unemployment, income inequality, and racial and economic segregation. We spend hundreds of millions in some neighborhoods to incarcerate while systemic segregation feeds a vicious cycle of violence that will remain unabated by community policing, increasing prison capacity, and tougher gun laws. Indeed, segregation and mass incarceration are critical neighborhood destabilizing forces that assure lower life expectancy, higher levels of infant mortality, and lost opportunities for population growth and development.


Gun violence is a disease resultant of generations of neglect, and concentrating racial and economic groups to the detriment of Chicago as a whole. The mass redirection of funds aimed at isolating, segregating, and incarcerating towards community and individual development, education, and desegregation is urgently needed. We urgently need safer communities that are multi-cultural and racially diversified. We urgently need to lift all Chicagoans to at least the level of “average” for the 100 most populous cities in America. Systematic desegregation, educational investment, and growth of jobs and incomes will improve the quality of life for Chicago from Riverdale, Englewood, and Burnside to Forest Glen, Near North, and O’Hare neighborhoods. Gun violence in Chicago is a public health emergency requiring a massive public health response to remediate a predictably worsening crisis.

Tables and Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1

Table 1:

Chicago NeighborhoodPercent Below Poverty LineChicago NeighborhoodHomicides Age Adjusted/100,000 persons 2005-2009
Riverdale56.5Burnside70.3
Full Park51.2Greater Grand Crossing49.7
Englewood46.6Fuller Park49.6
North Lawndale43.1West Englewood47.2
East Garfield Park42.4North Lawndale46.7
Washington Park42.1Chatham45.2
West Garfield Park41.7Englewood45.1
Amour Square40.1Washington Park44.6
Oakland39.7West Pullman43.9
West Englewood34.4South Deering41.3

 

Table 2: 

Chicago NeighborhoodPercent Population BlackChicago NeighborhoodGun Violence 2005-2009 per 100,000 personsChicago NeighborhoodPercent Below Poverty Line
Auburn Gresham97.8%Burnside70.3Riverdale56.5
Burnside97.7%West Pullman46.5Fuller Park51.2
Roseland97.4%Englewood44.9Englewood46.6
Englewood97.4%Greater Grand Crossing44.6North Lawndale43.1
Washington Heights97.4%Washington Park39.5East Garfield Park42.4
Chatham97.2%West Englewood39.3Washington Park42.1
Washington Park97.0%Chatham37.9West Garfield Park41.7
Greater Grand Crossing96.9%Roseland37.7Amour Square40.1
Riverdale96.4%North Lawndale37.6Oakland39.7
West Englewood96.3%East Garfield Park37.1West Englewood34.4

 

Figure 2
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 5

Table 3: 

All Causes of Death, 2014105,296 DeathsPercent of Total
Diseases of heart25,02023.8%
Malignant neoplasms24,50423.3%
Chronic lower respiratory diseases5,6335.3%
Cerebrovascular diseases5,4905.2%
Accidents (unintentional injuries)4,6424.4%
Motor vehicle accidents1,0641.0%
All other accidents3,5783.4%
Alzheimer’s disease3,2673.1%
Diabetes mellitus2,7122.6%
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis2,5172.4%
Influenza and pneumonia2,4832.4%
Septicemia1,8041.7%
Intentional self-harm (suicide)1,3961.3%
Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis1,3211.3%
Parkinson’s disease1,1161.1%
Figure 6
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 7

Table 4: 

Community

Average Life Expectancy

Community

Gun violence 2005-2009 Per 100,000 Persons

West Garfield Park

68.8

Burnside

70.3

Washington Park

68.9

West Pullman

46.5

Full Park

69.8

Englewood

44.9

West Englewood

70.1

Greater Grand Crossing

44.6

Englewood

70.7

Washington Park

39.5

Greater Grand Crossing

71.1

West Englewood

39.3

West Pullman

71.6

Chatham

37.9

East Garfield Park

71.7

Roseland

37.7

Austin

71.9

North Lawndale

37.6

Burnside

71.9

East Garfield Park

37.1

 

Figure 8
Figure 8

Table 5: 

Community

2009 Percent of Live Births Low Birth Weight

Community

Gun Violence 2005-2009 Per 100,000 persons

Community

Homicide Age Adjusted/100,000 Persons 2005-2009

Avalon Park

19.7

Burnside

70.3

Burnside

70.3

Washington Heights

19.6

West Pullman

46.5

Greater Grand Crossing

49.7

Washington Park

17.7

Englewood

44.9

Fuller Park

49.6

East Garfield Park

17.5

Greater Grand Crossing

44.6

West Englewood

47.2

Woodlawn

17.4

Washington Park

39.5

North Lawndale

46.7

Full Park

17.1

West Englewood

39.3

Chatham

45.2

West Garfield Park

17

Chatham

37.9

Englewood

45.1

West Englewood

16.1

Roseland

37.7

Washington Park

44.6

Austin

15.4

North Lawndale

37.6

West Pullman

43.9

Chatham

15.4

East Garfield Park

37.1

South Deering

41.3

 

Table 6: 

Community

Infant Mortality Rate Per 1000 Live Births 2005-2009

Community Gun Violence

Age Adjusted/100,000 Persons 2005-2009

Fuller Park

22.6

Burnside

70.3

Washington Park

19.3

Greater Grand Crossing

49.7

West Garfield Park

19

Fuller Park

49.6

South Chicago

17.7

West Englewood

47.2

Auburn Gresham

15.6

North Lawndale

46.7

Greater Grand Crossing

14.2

Chatham

45.2

North Lawndale

14.1

Englewood

45.1

Calumet Heights

13.9

Washington Park

44.6

Pullman

13.6

West Pullman

43.9

Douglas

13.4

South Deering

41.3

 

Figure 9
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 11

Table 7: 

Neighborhood

Homicides

Wounded

Total

Percent Homicides

Percent Wounded

Percent of Total 2017

Austin

71

335

406

12.3%

13.2%

13.0%

Garfield Park

27

199

226

4.7%

7.8%

7.2%

North Lawndale

35

183

218

6.1%

7.2%

7.0%

Englewood

44

173

217

7.7%

6.8%

7.0%

Humboldt Park

21

132

153

3.7%

5.2%

4.9%

Auburn Gresham

25

104

129

4.3%

4.1%

4.1%

South Shore

28

97

125

4.9%

3.8%

4.0%

Roseland

31

85

116

5.4%

3.3%

3.7%

Gran Crossing

16

95

111

2.8%

3.7%

3.6%

New City

16

78

94

2.8%

3.1%

3.0%

Chicago Lawn

15

73

88

2.6%

2.9%

2.8%

West Pullman

7

65

72

1.2%

2.6%

2.3%

Little Village

8

62

70

1.4%

2.4%

2.2%

Chatham

12

53

65

2.1%

2.1%

2.1%

Near West Side

14

49

63

2.4%

1.9%

2.0%

All hers

205

762

967

35.7%

29.9%

31.0%

Tota

575

2545

3120

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Top communities (out of 77); percent of total for Chicago

 

 

  

0%

69%

References

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014). National diabetes statistics report: estimates of diabetes and its burden in the United States, 2014. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2014. 

  2. American Diabetes Association. (2013). Economic costs of diabetes in the US in 2012. Diabetes care, DC_122625. 

  3. Zhuo, X., Zhang, P., Barker, L., Albright, A., Thompson, T. J., & Gregg, E. (2014). The lifetime cost of diabetes and its implications for diabetes prevention. Diabetes care37(9), 2557-2564. 

  4. American Diabetes Association.(2009). Standards of medical care in diabetes—2009. Diabetes care32(Suppl 1), S13. 

  5. Reaven, G. M. (1988). Role of insulin resistance in human disease. Diabetes37(12), 1595-1607. 

  6. American Diabetes Association. (2014). Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes care37(Supplement 1), S81-S90. 

  7. Paulino Silvestre, M., Christensen, P., Poppitt, S., Liu, A., Fogelholm, M., Westerterp-Plantega, M., … & Schlicht, W. (2017, May). Weight loss and its maintenance for type 2 diabetes prevention–the PREVIEW study. In XVI Portuguese Food and Nutrition Congress

  8. Lehtisalo, J., Lindström, J., Ngandu, T., Kivipelto, M., Ahtiluoto, S., Ilanne-Parikka, P., … & Luchsinger, J. (2016). Association of long-term dietary fat intake, exercise, and weight with later cognitive function in the Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study. The journal of nutrition, health & aging20(2), 146-154. 

  9. Luchsinger, J. A., Ma, Y., Christophi, C. A., Florez, H., Golden, S. H., Hazuda, H., … & Manly, J. J. (2017). Metformin, lifestyle intervention, and cognition in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study. Diabetes care, dc162376. 

  10. National Diabetes Data Group. (1979). Classification and diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and other categories of glucose intolerance. Diabetes28(12), 1039-1057. 

  11. Sallis, J. F., Owen, N., & Fisher, E. (2015). Ecological models of health behavior. Health behavior: Theory, research, and practice5, 43-64. 

  12. Epstein, L and Bickel, W. (2016). Delay Discounting as a Target for Self-regulation in Prediabetes. Grantome. National Institute of Health. Web. 7 Jan. 2016. http://grantome.com/grant/NIH/UH2-DK109543-01. 

  13. Knowler, W. C., Barrett-Connor, E., Fowler, S. E., Hamman, R. F., Lachin, J. M., Walker, E. A., & Nathan, D. M. (2002). Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. The New England Journal of Medicine346(6), 393-403. 

  14. Madiraju, A. K., Erion, D. M., Rahimi, Y., Zhang, X. M., Braddock, D. T., Albright, R. A., … & Jurczak, M. J. (2014). Metformin suppresses gluconeogenesis by inhibiting mitochondrial glycerophosphate dehydrogenase. Nature510(7506), 542. 

  15. Cost of metformin. (n.d.). Retrieved April 23, 2015, from https://www.healthwarehouse.com/metformin-850mg-tablets.html 

  16. Rao, M., Afshin, A., Singh, G., & Mozaffarian, D. (2013). Do healthier foods and diet patterns cost more than less healthy options? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ open3(12), e004277. 

  17. Bell, F. C., Wade, A. H., & Goss, S. C. (2002). Life tables for the United States social security area, 1900-2080 (No. 11). US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, Office of the Actuary. 

  18. National Kidney Foundation. (2017). NKF KDOQI guidelines. K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines on hypertension and antihypertensive agents in chronic kidney disease. 

  19. Gao, L., Zhao, F. L., & Li, S. C. (2012). Cost-utility analysis of liraglutide versus glimepiride as add-on to metformin in type 2 diabetes patients in China. International journal of technology assessment in health care28(4), 436-444. 

  20. Gulliford, M. C., Charlton, J., Bhattarai, N., Charlton, C., & Rudisill, C. (2014). Impact and cost-effectiveness of a universal strategy to promote physical activity in primary care: population-based Cohort study and Markov model. The European Journal of Health Economics15(4), 341-351. 

  21. Carlos, F., Ramírez-Gámez, J., Dueñas, H., Galindo-Suárez, R. M., & Ramos, E. (2012). Economic evaluation of duloxetine as a first-line treatment for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy in Mexico. Journal of Medical Economics15(2), 233-244. 

  22. Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. (2012). The 10-year cost-effectiveness of lifestyle intervention or metformin for diabetes prevention: an intent-to-treat analysis of the DPP/DPPOS. Diabetes care35(4), 723-730. 

  23. Chabris, C. F., Laibson, D., Morris, C. L., Schuldt, J. P., & Taubinsky, D. (2008). Individual laboratory-measured discount rates predict field behavior. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty37(2-3), 237. 

  24. Bernstein, J. (2008). Median income rose as did poverty in 2007. Economic Policy Institute, retrieved December 26, 2008. 

  25. Milkman, K. L., Minson, J. A., & Volpp, K. G. (2014). Holding the Hunger Games hostage at the gym: An evaluation of temptation bundling. Management science60(2), 283-299. 

  26. Petry, N. M., Cengiz, E., Wagner, J. A., Hood, K. K., Carria, L., & Tamborlane, W. V. (2013). Incentivizing behaviour change to improve diabetes care. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism15(12), 1071-1076. 

About the Author

Earl Fredrick, III, MD, MBA

Earl Fredrick, III, MD, MBA is an emergency medicine physician in Chicago, Illinois and is affiliated with Jackson Park Hospital and Medical Center. He received his medical degree from Howard University College of Medicine and has been in practice for more than 20 years.