Latest news with #youthhealth
Mail & Guardian
07-07-2025
- Health
- Mail & Guardian
A Crisis in the Making – The state of Health of South Africa's Youth
Satish Antony, Chief Analytics & Strategy Officer at Medscheme As South Africa grapples with a complex and evolving healthcare landscape, new data from Medscheme [an AfroCentric Group Company] shines a stark light on the health status of the country's youth, a group representing the foundation of our future economy. The analysis, focused on the 15–34 age bracket, offers a sobering look at the growing burden of disease, gender disparities in health, and the mental health challenges facing young people today. This data not only carries clinical implications but also provides vital context for broader socio-economic conversations about the future of productivity, healthcare access, and public-private system sustainability. 'We often think of youth as a healthy and resilient segment, but what we're seeing is an emerging health burden that begins to accelerate in early adulthood,' says Satish Antony Chief Analytics & Strategy Officer at Medscheme. 'Mental health, chronic disease, and gender-specific pressures are showing up earlier — and we must respond earlier.' Comprising 24.3% of the Medscheme member base, youth aged 15–34 account for 13.6% of healthcare spend and 12.4% of all service queries, signaling a population whose health demands are growing steadily. What's particularly concerning is the sharp rise in chronic illness as young people transition into early adulthood. While only 6.6% of youth (15–24) are registered with a chronic condition, this figure jumps to 11.5% among young adults (25–34), nearly 1.7 times higher. 'We need to start viewing youth healthcare not as a passive concern, but as a critical intervention point for reducing long-term system strain,' Antony adds. Mental health data reveals a deepening crisis, particularly among young males. Depression affects 2.3% of youth (15–24) and 4.1% of young adults (25–34), meaning 1 in every 25 young adults is clinically depressed. However, the true burden may be even higher. For men, in particular, the data exposes a dangerous gap: although admissions for males are dominated by mental health issues (including depression, bipolar disorder, and substance dependence), they show lower chronic registration rates than females. 'There is a significant underdiagnosis of mental illness in men. This reflects a broader societal stigma that discourages young men from seeking help until a crisis point is reached,' Antony warns. 'By then, the costs — both human and financial, are much higher.' The analysis also reveals that from age 20 onward, females exhibit higher chronic prevalence rates than their male counterparts, a trend largely driven by reproductive health and maternity admissions. While necessary and natural, this phase of life coincides with economic vulnerability, as many women in this age group are either entering the workforce or seeking to establish career stability. Coupled with higher rates of diagnosed depression, this underscores the urgent need for accessible, gender-sensitive healthcare solutions. 'We need benefit designs that reflect the realities of young working women, including access to mental health services, contraceptive care, and maternal health support,' says Antony. 'Women are not just patients; they are the economic engine of many households.' These challenges are further intensified by South Africa's overburdened public health system. Public hospitals and clinics, already struggling under the weight of communicable and non-communicable diseases, are often unable to provide consistent mental health services or preventative care, especially for young people who 'don't look sick' and are least likely to seek help. Investing in medical aid at an early career stage, particularly through employer-provided schemes or youth-focused products, can not only reduce long-term personal healthcare costs, but also relieve pressure on the public system. 'We encourage employers and young professionals to think of medical cover not as a luxury, but as a strategic safeguard,' Antony says. 'In a system under pressure, being covered means you can access care before it becomes critical.' With unemployment among youth sitting at over 43.4% (Stats SA, Q1 2025), access to employer-based healthcare remains out of reach for many, but for those entering formal work, the value of immediate healthcare coverage cannot be overstated. If South Africa is to build a sustainable and inclusive healthcare system, more must be done to tailor interventions to the youth segment both in the private medical scheme environment and the broader National Health Insurance (NHI) framework. What this data makes clear is that the traditional assumption, that youth are healthy by default — no longer holds. Mental health challenges, chronic diseases, and gender-based disparities are growing faster than the healthcare system is adapting. 'We cannot afford to treat youth health as a secondary concern. This is where future workforce health, national productivity, and intergenerational wellbeing are shaped,' Antony concludes.
CTV News
27-06-2025
- Health
- CTV News
Alberta judge grants injunction blocking a transgender health-care bill
EDMONTON — An Alberta judge has put on hold a provincial law that bans doctors from providing gender-affirming care to youth. Justice Allison Kuntz, in a written judgment Friday, said the law raises serious issues that need to be hashed out in court, and issued a temporary injunction against the law before it fully came into effect. Kuntz wrote that a temporary stop is needed to prevent what she calls 'irreparable harm' coming to young patients while the issue is debated. "The evidence shows that singling out health care for gender diverse youth and making it subject to government control will cause irreparable harm to gender diverse youth by reinforcing the discrimination and prejudice that they are already subjected to," Kuntz wrote in the judgment. The law, passed late last year but not fully in effect, would have prevented doctors from providing treatment such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy to those under 16. Kuntz wrote that denying access to this care not only risks causing youth emotional harm but also exposes them to permanent physical changes that don't match their gender identity. "Intentionally or not, the ban will signal that there is something wrong with or suspect about having a gender identity that is different than the sex you were assigned at birth," she wrote. "Gender diverse youth will bear the entire burden of that speculation." LGBTQ+ advocacy groups Egale Canada and the Skipping Stone Foundation took the case to court, and in a statement Egale said the decision was a "historic win." Also listed as applicants in the case are five transgender youth who will be directly affected. Egale's legal director Bennett Jensen said Friday that the decision was a "huge relief" for the youth involved. "(The legislation) does not solve any real issues in the medical system," Jensen said in an interview. "It simply creates them and targets an already very vulnerable, small group of young people with further discrimination, and that's what the judge found." Premier Danielle Smith has said she believes the legislation is needed to protect young people from making permanent, life-altering decisions. Smith has said it's about preserving that adult choice, and that making "permanent and irreversible decisions" about one's biological sex while still a child can limit that. Alberta Justice Minister Mickey Amery did not immediately provide comment on the decision. Opposition NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi said in a statement that his party was pleased to see the court decision, calling it a "great day for young Albertans who simply want to live authentically and safely." 'The court has determined what we already knew, that this ban could cause irreparable harm to gender diverse young Albertans," Nenshi said. 'This was never about doing the right thing: it was always about demonizing vulnerable kids to boost Danielle Smith's political fortunes." Also lauding the decision Friday was Senator Kris Wells, the former Canada Research Chair for the Public Understanding of Sexual and Gender Minority Youth. "This isn't just a win for trans youth, it is a win for Canada's health-care system," Wells wrote on social media. "No politician should be dictating or restricting your access to evidence-based medical care." Egale and the Skipping Stone Foundation aren't the only groups challenging the bill. Last month, the Canadian Medical Association and three Alberta-based doctors launched a legal case challenging the constitutionality of the bill, arguing it violates their Charter right to freedom of conscience. Alberta's other two pieces of transgender legislation — banning transgender women from competing in womens sports and preventing youth under 16 from changing their name or pronouns in the school system without parental consent — have yet to be challenged in court. The education bill also requires parents to opt in for their children to receive lessons in school on sexuality, sexual orientation and gender identity. — with files from Aaron Sousa This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 27, 2025. Lisa Johnson and Jack Farrell, The Canadian Press
CBC
27-06-2025
- Health
- CBC
Alberta judge grants injunction blocking a transgender health-care bill
An Alberta judge has put on hold a provincial law that bans doctors from providing gender-affirming care to youth. Justice Allison Kuntz, in a written judgment, has issued a temporary injunction against the law, saying it raises serious issues that need to be hashed out in court. Kuntz says a temporary stop to the law is needed to prevent what she calls "irreparable harm" coming to young patients while the issue is debated. The law, passed late last year but not fully in effect, would have prevented doctors from providing treatment such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy to those under 16. Kuntz says denying access to this care could force youth to experience permanent physical changes that don't match their gender identity. 2SLGBTQ+ advocacy groups took the case to court, while Premier Danielle Smith has said she believes the legislation is needed to protect young people from making permanent, life-altering decisions.
Yahoo
27-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
CP NewsAlert: Alberta judge grants injunction blocking a transgender health-care bill
EDMONTON — An Alberta judge has put on hold a provincial law that bans doctors from providing gender-affirming care to youth. Justice Allison Kuntz, in a written judgment, has issued a temporary injunction against the law, saying it raises serious issues that need to be hashed out in court. Kuntz says a temporary stop to the law is needed to prevent what she calls 'irreparable harm' coming to young patients while the issue is debated. The law, passed late last year but not fully in effect, would have prevented doctors from providing treatment such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy to those under 16. Kuntz says denying access to this care could force youth to experience permanent physical changes that don't match their gender identity. LGBTQ+ advocacy groups took the case to court, while Premier Danielle Smith has said she believes the legislation is needed to protect young people from making permanent, life-altering decisions. More coming. Lisa Johnson, The Canadian Press
The Independent
24-06-2025
- Health
- The Independent
Watchdog acted ‘irrationally' in registering private gender clinic, court told
The health watchdog's decision to register England's first private clinic offering gender treatment to young people was 'simply not open to it', the High Court has heard. Former nurse Susan Evans and a mother known as XX are taking legal action against the Care Quality Commission (CQC) over its decision to register the Gender Plus Hormone Clinic (GPHC) in Birmingham in January last year. The two are also challenging the regulator's decision to continue the clinic's registration and to allow it to prescribe cross-sex hormone treatment to 16 and 17-year-olds without conditions, made last December. The clinic, which was rated outstanding by the watchdog last year, treats people aged 16 and older, including through prescribing gender-affirming – masculinising or feminising – hormones, but, in line with the NHS, does not prescribe puberty blockers. Lawyers representing the two women told a hearing on Tuesday that the watchdog did not consider aspects that were 'obviously material' when making its decision, including the NHS's stance on hormone treatment for children aged 16 and 17 in light of the Cass Review. The watchdog is defending the claim, telling the court that it was 'abundantly clear that there was ample evidence' for its decision, while lawyers for the company which runs the clinic, Gender Plus Healthcare Limited, said the legal action was 'fatally flawed'. Opening the women's case on Tuesday, barrister Tom Cross KC said the clinic was believed to be the only hormone treatment provider to 16 and 17-year-olds in England, and that the claimants' concern was about safety, with Ms Evans previously stating she believed the registration 'creates a significant risk of a two-tier approach'. Mr Cross said: 'At arriving at the conclusion that the provider should continue to be registered without any conditions … the CQC has acted irrationally.' He added: 'It has not factored into its conclusion a number of aspects of the process on the NHS, informed by the Cass Review, which serve as important safeguards for children within the cohort and were obviously material.' The barrister said that had the CQC factored these in, it would have 'decided to exercise its power to halt the treatment' of under-18s, and that its decision was 'simply not open to them'. He claimed that 'at the very least' the court 'should require the CQC to think again about the adequacy of the safeguards'. Hormone treatment was previously provided on the NHS at the now-closed Gender Identity Development Service (Gids) run by the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, where Ms Evans previously worked. But a review published by Baroness Cass in April last year said that 'extreme caution' should be demonstrated when deciding to prescribe the treatment to 16 and 17-year-olds, and that there should be 'clear clinical rationale for providing hormones at this stage rather than waiting until an individual reaches 18'. The NHS has opened three specialist children's gender clinics and has plans for a further five covering the seven NHS regions in England by the end of 2026, but has said that all recommendations for hormone interventions must be endorsed by a national multi-disciplinary team (MDT). It is understood that the MDT has not yet received any recommendations for hormone treatment for 16 and 17-year-olds, since the Cass Review. GPHC was set up by Dr Aidan Kelly and is led by nurse consultant Paul Carruthers, who both worked at Gids, and has previously said it primarily treats patients aged between 16 and 25, using its own MDT. But Mr Cross said in written submissions that in the year up to June 2024, GPHC has 'accepted almost every single patient that it considered' for hormone treatment, and that the contrast with the NHS 'could not be more stark'. He said there were 'a number of key differences' between GPHC and the NHS safeguards, including that referrals to the former came from Dr Kelly's company, Kelly Psychology, which is unregulated. He said: 'It is, and ought to have been, obvious that the unregulated nature of the referrer enhanced the risk of patient safety.' He concluded: 'Either the CQC had to impose a condition which rationally ensured patient safety, or, if that were not possible, had to decide not to continue the registration.' Jamie Burton KC, for the CQC, said that there was 'ample evidence' that Kelly Psychology 'did not pose an unacceptable risk' to patients, and that a 'significant number' of those assessed by the company were not referred for treatment at GPHC. The court was told that the CQC found no evidence of 'improper decision making or anything that might flag a concern', and that the clinic was found to be 'committed to the safety and best interests of its patients'. He continued: 'CQC found GHPC to be acting in line with national guidance, including the NHS England 2024 Criteria. 'It found nothing to suggest that this was merely lip service or that GPHC management held an ideological commitment that was undermining its professional and regulatory commitments, or otherwise threatening the safety of patients.' He also said that the CQC 'had regard' to NHS processes, and that there could not be 'any legitimate doubt about the correctness of the ultimate outcome, or GPHC's continued registration'. He said: 'In its professional judgment, it found that the provider was taking reasonable steps to safeguard 16 and 17-year-olds by way of its existing processes.' Peter Mant KC, for Gender Plus Healthcare Limited, said that there was no legal requirement for a private provider to mirror NHS care and that the claimants' concerns 'do not have a high-quality evidence base'. He continued that the clinic's model was 'entirely consistent' with the Cass Review and NHS policy, and that patients 'no longer routinely have any input' from Kelly Psychology. He added that concerns related to the rate of accepting new patients were 'unjustified', and that the court should not 'go behind' the CQC's decision. The hearing before Mrs Justice Eady is expected to conclude on Wednesday, with a judgment expected in writing at a later date.
