Is erectile dysfunction the key to unlocking the crisis in men's health?
A recent Washington Post article, 'A Silent Crisis in Men's Health Gets Worse,' highlighted the fact that men are at a greater risk of dying from most causes than women. Men's life expectancy is almost 6 years shorter—73.2 years vs 79.1.
While there are a multitude of physiological and behavioral reasons that drive these differences, there's one obvious contributing factor, Hims reports. Most men do not attend to their health as well as women. CDC data from 2018 shows that the physician visit rate is 40% higher for women than for men.
Unlike women, who are accustomed to pregnancy visits in their childbearing years and a lifetime of regular breast cancer screenings and gynecologic visits, many men do everything they can to avoid seeing the doctor.
Many men don't want to 'appear weak' or 'complain' about physical or emotional problems. Some may be afraid of uncovering a medical vulnerability that upsets their sense of control or puts a chink in their proverbial armor.
Pair that with the lack of symptoms associated with potentially serious illnesses like high blood pressure, heart disease, high cholesterol and diabetes, and it all adds up to a silent crisis affecting most men in the U.S.
Erectile dysfunction: The great motivator
There is one condition, however, that gets our attention and is likely to lead us to a healthcare provider: erectile dysfunction. Men with the courage to seek help tend to beeline straight for the first healthcare provider they can access when their penises aren't working right.
And ED is common: The 2021 National Survey of Sexual Wellbeing survey found just under a quarter of men over 18 in the U.S. experience ED, with rates generally increasing with age. This phenomenon, the ability of ED to break through many of the barriers that have been preventing men from engaging with the healthcare system, presents a tremendous opportunity for urologists to help.
Erections and body function
Getting a strong erection is a complicated physiological process that requires precise coordination of many body systems.
Dysfunction of any one of these body systems can cause ED. So, erections can go wrong in a lot of ways. But that also means that if a man has ED, it might be a warning sign that something undiagnosed is wrong with one of the body systems that is important for getting and maintaining strong erections. And that 'something' could be critical to a man's overall health.
ED and other medical conditions
Erectile dysfunction is not just a standalone condition. Men with ED are more likely to have chronic conditions like high blood pressure, high cholesterol, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and depression.
That's because these conditions share pathophysiology with ED—the same things that go wrong inside the body that cause these diseases and conditions can also cause or worsen ED. In addition, claims data of close to a million men with documented ED found an association between ED and many other serious health problems. They include immune system, liver, lung, prostate, and myoneural (muscle-nerve) conditions.
Treatment for erectile dysfunction and more
The process for diagnosis can be pretty simple. A physician may start with detailed medical and sexual histories looking for symptoms or contributory factors (e.g., anxiety, smoking, low testosterone).
A doctor may check for high blood pressure, which is a 'silent cause' of both cardiovascular disease and ED, as well as look for signs of problems with the penis or hormonal imbalances. And, if a patient hasn't had them checked recently, blood tests can screen for diabetes, high cholesterol, and hormone deficiencies.
Treatment for ED is tailored to each patient. It generally involves medication to support erectile function, such as sildenafil (Viagra), tadalafil (Cialis), vardenafil (Levitra) or avanafil (Stendra).
Other treatments, like testosterone replacement therapy or medication to reduce blood pressure or cholesterol, may be appropriate, based on clinical signs and blood test results.
Sometimes physicians may refer patients to other healthcare providers like a sex therapist (if there is a psychological component to the sexual dysfunction), dietitian, primary care doctor (if they don't have one), or endocrinologist (if a patient has diabetes).
The penis as a barometer: How it reveals overall health
National polls are barometers of election results; the way you feel on a first date is a barometer of the way a relationship may develop; and the penis is absolutely a barometer of general health. So, take your penis seriously. If it is misbehaving, your body might be warning you of a serious but hidden medical problem.
This story was produced by Hims and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
24 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump's cynical bait-and-switch on IVF
Donald Trump Prescription drugs Health care policyFacebookTweetLink Follow To hear President Donald Trump tell it, he wields an almost magical ability to lower Americans' health care costs. Yet that doesn't seem to extend to one area where he made explicit 2024 campaign promises: in vitro fertilization. Just this weekend, Trump claimed he had lowered prescription drug costs as much as 1,500%. 'I don't mean 50%,' Trump clarified. 'I mean 14, 1,500%.' This is obviously false and innumerate. You can't cut something more than 100%. It would mean drug companies were not only giving their drugs away for free, but actually paying people exorbitant sums to take them. But the self-proclaimed 'father of IVF' appears to be an absentee dad. His past vows to make the expensive and arduous IVF process 'free,' or at least require insurers to cover it, would fall under that seemingly magical umbrella as well, of course. But contrasting with his repeated pressure on drugmakers to lower costs — regardless of whether it's in his power to do so — Trump and his administration haven't done much of anything to make his IVF promises a reality. And it sounds like they've given up trying, to the extent they meant to pursue this policy in the first place. Indeed, this looked a whole lot like a cynical pander during the 2024 campaign. And the administration's actions since then only seem to confirm it. The Washington Post reported this weekend that the Trump administration has no actual plan to get insurers to cover IVF, more than six months into the new administration. The only concrete action Trump has taken on this front was back in February, when Trump instructed his domestic policy council to submit 'recommendations' on 'aggressively reducing out-of-pocket and health plan costs for IVF treatment.' He gave it 90 days. Those recommendations were due in mid-May. But there is still no word on what, if any, recommendations were produced, and the administration last week reportedly declined to comment on the situation. Fast forward to today, and the White House is apparently waving the white flag on Trump's biggest IVF promise. White House officials reportedly blamed inaction on the fact that Trump can't legally do this on his own and would need Congress to pass a law. But that's not exactly the kind of impediment that Trump usually respects. His first six-plus months back in the presidency are rife with attempts to take bold and legally dubious executive actions that challenge the courts to stop him and companies to defy him. That's even applied to health care specifically. Just last week, Trump sent letters to 17 major pharmaceutical company CEOs giving them 60 days to comply with an executive order that sought to lower prescription drug prices — even as experts say he has no such authority. Trump has also sought to squeeze drugmakers in other ways, including threatening tariffs on pharmaceutical imports. But the White House hasn't engaged in those hardball tactics to make insurers cover IVF. Administration officials aren't putting any public pressure on Congress to pass the law it says it needs, either, and they don't even seem to want to talk about the situation. And if that's the new reality, it was entirely predictable — and predicted. It was almost exactly a year ago when Trump debuted this promise. 'The government is going to pay for [IVF], or we're going to get — we'll mandate your insurance company to pay for it, which is going to be great. We're going to do that,' Trump said in August 2024. 'We want to produce babies in this country, right?' That's not a 'we'll try to make this happen' promise. That's a 'we're going to make this happen' promise. By October, Trump had declared himself the 'father of IVF' (something his campaign later labeled a joke). And Vice President JD Vance at his 2024 debate declared that making IVF more 'accessible' was core to the GOP's health agenda. Even at the time, though, many dismissed the promises as hot air. Trump and his campaign were dealing with political fallout from strict red-state abortion bans, some of which had imperiled IVF access and coverage. Rhetorically bear-hugging IVF, a practice that's widely popular with voters, made sense. But free IVF or ubiquitous insurance coverage never seemed an especially serious idea. Not only are IVF costs very expensive, stretching into tens of thousands of dollars per treatment, but many anti-abortion conservatives are starkly opposed to it. The process involves producing embryos that are never used and are often destroyed, creating a moral quandary for anti-abortion blocs that believe life begins at conception. The idea that a Republican administration would spearhead making that cheaper — or even making the government pay for the creation of later-discarded embryos — was always far-fetched. Because of all of this, many Republican lawmakers strongly rejected Trump's proposal when he debuted it. Some even acknowledged that it appeared to be a rather transparent bit of pandering that was not to be taken seriously. 'People get emotional about an issue, so they decide to completely pander and go way over a position they never really supported because they're afraid people accuse them,' Conservative Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said at the time. It appears that's precisely what happened here. That's bad news for anybody who might have been counting on this proposal. These issues, after all, deal with one of the most heart-wrenching circumstances that many families will ever confront: problems conceiving children. The cost is prohibitive for many people. An October Ipsos poll also showed many Americans supported the idea. They said by a 55-26% margin that Congress should pass a law requiring insurers to cover IVF. The Washington Post back in February profiled a young woman who had heard Trump deliver the promise and reluctantly voted for him. When the White House in February announced its limited IVF recommendations, saying it was delivering on Trump's promises, she called it 'bullsh*t.' It's getting more and more difficult to quibble with that summary.
Fox News
25 minutes ago
- Fox News
Highly contagious disease surges in some US states amid report of possible fatal case
Hand, foot and mouth disease (HFMD) is on the rise in some parts of the U.S., public health departments have reported. The highly contagious viral illness is most prevalent among children under 5, but people of all ages can become infected, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In Virginia, the Fairfax County Health District has published an alert of six HFMD outbreaks earlier this year, mainly affecting children 4 and younger. The U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Health has confirmed 189 cases of the disease in St. Thomas, including a possible fatal case involving a toddler. In March, the Pan American Health Organization issued an alert urging member states to "strengthen the prevention and control of hand, foot and mouth disease, especially in children, due to their high vulnerability and the risk of serious complications in the central nervous system." Tina Q. Tan, M.D., an attending physician at the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago and president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said that HFMD most commonly occurs during the summer and early fall when the weather is warmer. "We are seeing more cases at this time," she told Fox News Digital. "It is a very common infection that is usually mild." The viruses that most commonly cause the illness are the Coxsackie and Enteroviruses, the doctor said. HFMD can be transmitted through viral particles while sneezing, coughing or talking, the CDC says. People can also spread the virus after touching contaminated objects and surfaces. In the case of blistering rashes, the fluid from the blisters can also spread the virus. "The illness is very contagious, so it can spread quickly in daycare and school settings," Tan said. "Persons are most contagious during the first few days of the illness, but it can also be spread through stool for several weeks." "We are seeing more cases at this time. It is a very common infection that is usually mild." Infants and children can continue to go to daycare and school as long as they have no fever, are feeling well enough to drink and participate in activities, and have no open lesions or copious drooling when they have the mouth sores, according to Tan. The primary symptoms of HFMD include fever, skin rash and painful, blistering mouth sores, per the CDC. "The rash is most commonly found on hands and feet, appearing as raised or flat red spots that can turn into blisters," Tan told Fox News Digital. "The painful mouth sores, blisters or ulcers can occur on the tongue, gums and mucous membranes," she added. Most people only experience mild illness and get better without treatment within seven to 10 days. People can manage pain and fever with over-the-counter medications. They should also drink plenty of fluids to prevent dehydration, the CDC recommends. While complications are rare, the CDC advises that pregnant women see a doctor if they contract HFMD. "Patients or parents should seek medical care if they feel they are uncomfortable with the symptoms that they or their child are having and the symptoms are worsening; if they are unable to take adequate fluid and there is a decrease in urine output; or anytime they feel that there is a change in mental status," Tan said. The most common complication of HFMD is dehydration due to painful mouth lesions that prevent adequate fluid intake, according to the doctor. "It can also cause nail loss in those individuals who had involvement of fingers," she said. "Very rarely, it can cause serious complications like viral meningitis, encephalitis and paralysis." To prevent the highly contagious virus, the CDC recommends washing hands frequently with soap and water. For more Health articles, visit People should also clean and disinfect common surfaces and shared items, such as doorknobs and toys, Tan advised. There is not currently a vaccine for HFMD in the U.S.
CNN
25 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump's cynical bait-and-switch on IVF
To hear President Donald Trump tell it, he wields an almost magical ability to lower Americans' health care costs. Yet that doesn't seem to extend to one area where he made explicit 2024 campaign promises: in vitro fertilization. Just this weekend, Trump claimed he had lowered prescription drug costs as much as 1,500%. 'I don't mean 50%,' Trump clarified. 'I mean 14, 1,500%.' This is obviously false and innumerate. You can't cut something more than 100%. It would mean drug companies were not only giving their drugs away for free, but actually paying people exorbitant sums to take them. But the self-proclaimed 'father of IVF' appears to be an absentee dad. His past vows to make the expensive and arduous IVF process 'free,' or at least require insurers to cover it, would fall under that seemingly magical umbrella as well, of course. But contrasting with his repeated pressure on drugmakers to lower costs — regardless of whether it's in his power to do so — Trump and his administration haven't done much of anything to make his IVF promises a reality. And it sounds like they've given up trying, to the extent they meant to pursue this policy in the first place. Indeed, this looked a whole lot like a cynical pander during the 2024 campaign. And the administration's actions since then only seem to confirm it. The Washington Post reported this weekend that the Trump administration has no actual plan to get insurers to cover IVF, more than six months into the new administration. The only concrete action Trump has taken on this front was back in February, when Trump instructed his domestic policy council to submit 'recommendations' on 'aggressively reducing out-of-pocket and health plan costs for IVF treatment.' He gave it 90 days. Those recommendations were due in mid-May. But there is still no word on what, if any, recommendations were produced, and the administration last week reportedly declined to comment on the situation. Fast forward to today, and the White House is apparently waving the white flag on Trump's biggest IVF promise. White House officials reportedly blamed inaction on the fact that Trump can't legally do this on his own and would need Congress to pass a law. But that's not exactly the kind of impediment that Trump usually respects. His first six-plus months back in the presidency are rife with attempts to take bold and legally dubious executive actions that challenge the courts to stop him and companies to defy him. That's even applied to health care specifically. Just last week, Trump sent letters to 17 major pharmaceutical company CEOs giving them 60 days to comply with an executive order that sought to lower prescription drug prices — even as experts say he has no such authority. Trump has also sought to squeeze drugmakers in other ways, including threatening tariffs on pharmaceutical imports. But the White House hasn't engaged in those hardball tactics to make insurers cover IVF. Administration officials aren't putting any public pressure on Congress to pass the law it says it needs, either, and they don't even seem to want to talk about the situation. And if that's the new reality, it was entirely predictable — and predicted. It was almost exactly a year ago when Trump debuted this promise. 'The government is going to pay for [IVF], or we're going to get — we'll mandate your insurance company to pay for it, which is going to be great. We're going to do that,' Trump said in August 2024. 'We want to produce babies in this country, right?' That's not a 'we'll try to make this happen' promise. That's a 'we're going to make this happen' promise. By October, Trump had declared himself the 'father of IVF' (something his campaign later labeled a joke). And Vice President JD Vance at his 2024 debate declared that making IVF more 'accessible' was core to the GOP's health agenda. Even at the time, though, many dismissed the promises as hot air. Trump and his campaign were dealing with political fallout from strict red-state abortion bans, some of which had imperiled IVF access and coverage. Rhetorically bear-hugging IVF, a practice that's widely popular with voters, made sense. But free IVF or ubiquitous insurance coverage never seemed an especially serious idea. Not only are IVF costs very expensive, stretching into tens of thousands of dollars per treatment, but many anti-abortion conservatives are starkly opposed to it. The process involves producing embryos that are never used and are often destroyed, creating a moral quandary for anti-abortion blocs that believe life begins at conception. The idea that a Republican administration would spearhead making that cheaper — or even making the government pay for the creation of later-discarded embryos — was always far-fetched. Because of all of this, many Republican lawmakers strongly rejected Trump's proposal when he debuted it. Some even acknowledged that it appeared to be a rather transparent bit of pandering that was not to be taken seriously. 'People get emotional about an issue, so they decide to completely pander and go way over a position they never really supported because they're afraid people accuse them,' Conservative Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said at the time. It appears that's precisely what happened here. That's bad news for anybody who might have been counting on this proposal. These issues, after all, deal with one of the most heart-wrenching circumstances that many families will ever confront: problems conceiving children. The cost is prohibitive for many people. An October Ipsos poll also showed many Americans supported the idea. They said by a 55-26% margin that Congress should pass a law requiring insurers to cover IVF. The Washington Post back in February profiled a young woman who had heard Trump deliver the promise and reluctantly voted for him. When the White House in February announced its limited IVF recommendations, saying it was delivering on Trump's promises, she called it 'bullsh*t.' It's getting more and more difficult to quibble with that summary.
