Tag: health

Aetna to Cover IVF Treatments for Same-Sex Couples After $2M National Settlement

Read more at GayE.

When Mara Berton and June Higginbotham imagined their future, it always included children. What they did not imagine was a $45,000 bill standing between them and the family they dreamed of building.

The Santa Clara County couple, both lesbians, discovered that while their heterosexual colleagues’ fertility treatments were largely covered by insurance, they were excluded from the same benefits. To conceive, they were forced to pay entirely out of pocket, a financial burden that reshaped their timeline, their choices and their emotional well-being.

Last week, that inequity cracked open.

In a landmark national settlement approved by U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr., Aetna agreed to cover fertility treatments such as artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization for same-sex couples on the same terms as heterosexual couples. The agreement applies nationwide across all Aetna plans, making it the first case to require a major insurer to implement such a policy uniformly.

An estimated 2.8 million LGBTQ members will benefit, including about 91,000 Californians. The settlement also requires Aetna to pay at least $2 million in damages to eligible California-based members, who must submit claims by June 29, 2026.

“We knew it wasn’t right,” Berton said in an interview with CalMatters. “What we’re fighting for is about family building and having kids. It was really important to both of us that other couples not have to do this.”

Before the settlement, Aetna’s policy required enrollees to engage in six to 12 months of “unprotected heterosexual sexual intercourse” before qualifying for fertility benefits, according to the class action complaint. Women without male partners could only access coverage after undergoing six to 12 unsuccessful cycles of artificial insemination, depending on age, a requirement medical experts say is excessive and clinically unnecessary.

The policy, attorneys argued, treated LGBTQ members fundamentally differently and effectively denied them a benefit that can be prohibitively expensive.

“This was an issue of inequality,” said Alison Tanner, senior litigation counsel for reproductive rights and health at the National Women’s Law Center, which supported the litigation. “Folks in same-sex relationships were being treated differently.”

In an email, Aetna spokesperson Phillip Blando said the insurer is committed to equal access to infertility and reproductive health coverage and will continue working to improve access for all members.

For Berton, the policy felt personal and dehumanizing. After consulting with a fertility clinic and deciding to move forward with donor sperm, she was told by Aetna that she did not meet the definition of infertility. Multiple appeals were denied. Insurance required her to attempt 12 rounds of artificial insemination,even though her doctors recommended no more than four.

Sean Tipton, chief advocacy and policy director for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, said policies like that are designed to discourage people from using their benefits. While many doctors recommend three to four cycles of insemination before IVF, studies also show it can be more efficient and cost-effective to move directly to IVF.

In 2023, the society updated its medical definition of infertility to explicitly include LGBTQ people and individuals without partners, a shift aimed at preventing insurers from denying claims like Berton’s.

“It takes two kinds of gametes to have kids,” Tipton said. “Regardless of the cause of that absence, you have to have access to care.”

The settlement comes as California prepares to expand fertility coverage further. A new state law taking effect in January will require most state-regulated health plans to cover fertility care for same-sex couples and single people by broadening the definition of infertility. While that law does not apply to Aetna’s national plans, advocates say the momentum is unmistakable.

And it could not come at a more urgent time.

As LGBTQ rights are increasingly rolled back across the country, from bans on gender-affirming care to restrictions on queer families in schools and public life, access to reproductive health care has become another contested frontier. Who is allowed to build a family, and under what conditions, is no longer just a medical question but a political one. This settlement affirms that queer families are not exceptions to be managed but lives to be supported.

Berton and Higginbotham ultimately moved forward without coverage, pulling together money from family and enduring the physical and emotional toll of fertility treatments, including a miscarriage. Today, they are raising twin girls who love the swings and pulling every book off the shelf for story time.

They built their family before the lawsuit concluded. Still, Higginbotham said the victory matters deeply.

“I know people who don’t have children because this isn’t covered,” she said. “The settlement is such a huge step forward that is really righting a huge wrong.”

In a moment when so much is being taken, the ruling stands as a reminder; equality is not abstract. Sometimes, it looks like a family finally being allowed to exist.

0

Donald Trump ends LGBTQ+ health programs under the cover of the shutdown

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

On Friday, the Trump administration began massive layoffs throughout the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). As part of that, they completely removed the Office of Population Affairs, which was responsible for a wealth of public health programs, including specific initiatives for the LGBTQ+ community.

“This wasn’t a budget decision — it was ideological,” a former member of the Biden administration told The Advocate.  “These are the programs that centered reproductive and queer health, and now they’re gone.”

Donald Trump has welcomed the government shutdown as an opportunity to cut what he has called “Democrat Agencies” to shrink the government. The process is being led by Russ Vought, the head of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and key author of Project 2025, which advocated for such cuts. However, he has also tried to blame those government cuts on the Democrats.

Vought took to X/Twitter on Friday to announce the start of the “Reduction in Force,” or RIF. His office confirmed via Politico that federal employees were being permanently fired, not temporarily furloughed for the duration of the shutdown: “Can confirm RIFs have begun and they are substantial. These are RIFs, not furloughs.”

Adrian Shanker, who served as deputy assistant secretary for Health Policy during the Biden administration, told The Advocate that while the Office of Population Affairs often had its programs politicized, this is “the first time that the office itself is being cut.”

The Office of Population Affairs manages a huge range of public health initiatives. Those include Title X family planning services and grants; programs for adolescents that cover issues such as pregnancy prevention, mental health, and substance abuse; the Embryo Adoption Awareness and Services program; screenings and treatment for sexually transmitted infections and information on preventing the spread of HIV; and LGBTQ+ health initiatives, including information on gender-affirming care.

As well as restricting programming targeted specifically at the LGBTQ+ community, these cuts will restrict access to family planning programs that LGBTQ+ people are more likely to make use of to grow their families.

The cuts to the Office of Population Affairs will leave us lacking when it comes to sex education and with less support for LGBTQ+ youth, Shanker noted, saying it “leaves us more vulnerable to health inequities and worsened health outcomes.”

Wider cuts to the HHS will have broader effects as the CDC is losing over a thousand employees, including the elimination of entire departments. “CDC is over. It was killed,” said Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, the out gay former director of the CDC’s National Center on Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, after 1000 scientists, doctors, and public health officials were fired from HHS on Friday. Daskalakis, an infectious diseases expert, resigned in protest of the administration’s war on science-based public health earlier this year.

“This administration only knows how to break things. They have made America at risk for outbreaks and attacks by nefarious players. People should be scared.”

Some reports have suggested that some laid-off employees have been contacted and told that their reduction-in-force notices are being rescinded. This happened with federal layoffs from DOGE in the past, with some employees being rehired after DOGE cut their jobs. However, reports are unclear on how many RIFs have been rescinded.

Previous federal layoffs have been litigated in court, with some resulting in court rulings that the people cannot be fired, while other courts have allowed the dismissals to proceed. That process, if it occurs here, will take time, during which public health will suffer a setback.

“Without these people in place, it’s unlikely that a lot of these programs will be able to continue even after the government reopens,” predicted Shanker.

0

Texas drops lawsuit against doctor accused of providing gender-affirming care to youth

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton withdrew the state’s lawsuit against pediatric endocrinologist Dr. Hector Granados on Thursday after finding no evidence that he violated the state’s ban on gender affirming care for trans youth.

Paxton sued Granados in October 2024, accusing him of providing puberty blockers and hormones to patients as young as 12 in treatment for gender dysphoria. Paxton accused Granados of falsifying medical and billing records to mislead pharmacies and insurance providers into covering the care.

Paxton initially called Granados a “scofflaw who is harming the health and safety of Texas children,” and Granados wasn’t notified before the lawsuit’s filing, in worries that he might try to destroy relevant records, The Hill reported.

However, Granados said he stopped providing gender-affirming care in May 2023, after the state’s legislature passed the law. Now that Paxton’s office has dropped its charges against him, Paxton’s office will now “focus on other ongoing cases against doctors who illegally provided harmful ‘transition’ treatments and drugs to children,” an attorney general spokesperson said, according to The Hill.

The state has also sued May Lau and M. Brett Cooper, two medical providers from the University of Texas’ Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. If found guilty, both could possibly lose their medical licenses and face hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.

Despite Paxton’s claim about gender-affirming care being “harmful,” the medications used in such care have been used safely in children for decades for the purposes of gender transition and to treat other medical issues in cisgender children as well. In fact, Texas’ law stands in opposition to the best care practices for treating gender dysphoria recommended by every major American medical association. These associations agree that such care is safe, effective, and essential for the overall well-being of trans people.

0

DOJ mulling rule that could restrict transgender individuals from owning guns

Read more at ABC News.

Senior Justice Department officials have held internal deliberations in recent days over potentially issuing a rule that could restrict transgender individuals from being able to own firearms, two officials familiar with the discussions confirmed Thursday to ABC News.

The policy discussions, which are believed to be in their early stages and driven in part by chatter in right-wing media, follow last week’s Minneapolis Catholic church shooting that the FBI has said was carried out by a transgender woman.

Such a proposal could face significant pushback not only from civil rights groups but from gun rights organizations, which have historically been resistant to the issuance of any regulations restricting people’s access to firearms.

There is no evidence to suggest transgender people are more likely to be violent than the general population. However, transgender people are far more likely than average to be the victim of a violent crime.

Still, the discussions have percolated in recent days among top officials in the Justice Department, including in the Office of Legal Counsel, which provides legal advice to all executive branch agencies.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) and other major medical associations do not consider being transgender a mental illness and recognize transgender and gender diverse identities as normal variations in human expression. The APA distinguishes gender dysphoria — which is defined as “clinically significant distress or impairment” that transgender individuals may experience when they feel a difference between their assigned sex at birth and their gender identity — as a separate diagnosis, and supports gender-affirming care while opposing practices that try to change a person’s gender identity.

DOJ officials have debated whether having a diagnoses of gender dysphoria could disqualify someone under a federal law that restricts people who are “adjudicated as mental defective” from owning guns, sources said.

The possible move would be the latest escalation in an ongoing push by the Trump Administration to restrict the rights of transgender individuals — and would appear to conflict with other moves by the Justice Department to lift what it has argued are unfair burdens restricting Americans’ Second Amendment rights to bear arms.

Among its efforts, the DOJ has proposed a new rule that could restore gun ownership rights to certain people with felony convictions, and has said it would pursue civil rights investigations into cities that it says engage in a pattern or practice of depriving local citizens of their Second Amendment rights.

Laurel Powell, director of communications at the Human Rights Campaign, told ABC News in a statement, “The Constitution isn’t a privilege reserved for the few; it guarantees basic rights to all. Transgender people are your neighbors, classmates, family members, and friends — and we deserve the full protection of our nation’s laws, not anti-American nonsense from the White House.”

“If rights can be stripped from one group simply because of who they are, they can be stripped from anyone,” Powell said.

A Justice Department spokesperson told ABC News, “The DOJ is actively evaluating options to prevent the pattern of violence we have seen from individuals with specific mental health challenges and substance abuse disorders. No specific criminal justice proposals have been advanced at this time.”

0

Massachusetts lesbian Gov. Maura Healey signs abortion and gender-affirming care shield law

Read more at The Advocate.

Massachusetts has enacted an even stronger shield law for abortion and gender-affirming care.

Democratic Gov. Maura Healey, the first out lesbian governor in the U.S., signed the Shield Act 2.0 into law Thursday. The bill further strengthens protections for patients and providers of reproductive healthcare, while explicitly mandating that abortions be performed when deemed medically necessary.

“Massachusetts will always be a state where patients can access high-quality health care and providers are able to do their jobs without government interference,” Healey said in a statement. “From the moment Roe was overturned, we stepped up to pass strong protections for patients and providers, and with President Trump and his allies continuing their assaults on health care, we’re taking those protections to the next level. No one is going to prevent the people of Massachusetts from getting the health care they need.”

The state’s original shield law, enacted by Democratic Gov. Charlie Baker in July, 2022, prohibits states that have banned the life-saving treatment from punishing those who travel to Massachusetts to receive it by preventing the release of information or the arrest and extradition of someone based on another state’s court orders.

The new law further prevents the disclosure of sensitive data, such as a physician’s name, and prohibits local law enforcement from cooperating with other jurisdictions in their investigations. It also directs the Department of Public Health to create an advisory group to help guide businesses as they implement privacy protections for storing or managing electronic medical records.

“Massachusetts is home to the best health care providers in the country, and we aren’t going to let them be intimidated or punished for providing lifesaving care,” said Lieutenant Governor Kim Driscoll. “Together with the Legislature, we are reminding the entire country yet again that Massachusetts is a place where everyone can safely access the health care they need and deserve.”

0

Senate rejects president’s budget proposal to slash life-saving HIV programs

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

The Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday rejected the presidential administration’s proposed termination of the CDC’s HIV prevention and surveillance efforts as well as massive proposed funding cuts to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), advancing a measure that would increase the agency’s budget by $400 million. 

The White House budget called for slashing NIH funding by $18 billion, a decrease of 40 percent. The committee rejected those cuts and others addressing HIV prevention, treatment and care, advancing the bill with overwhelming bipartisan support on a 26-3 vote.

“This committee has had multiple hearings over the last several months and heard from patients, families and researchers about the importance of NIH funding,” said out Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) in remarks after the vote, The Hill reported. “This committee has, in a bipartisan manner, prioritized NIH and the research it supports to develop life-saving treatments and cures for devastating diseases.” 

Earlier this month, both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees rejected the presidential administration’s proposal to eliminate the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS program. While the House proposed maintaining the current $505 million budget, the Senate proposed to increase it by $24 million.

The committee also rejected funding cuts and block grants to states for prevention efforts focused on hepatitis and other STIs.

Senate appropriators preserved those parts of the administration’s budget that had maintained funding addressing HIV and PrEP programs, including $542 million for the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative launched by the president in his first term. The initiative’s funding includes PrEP in community health centers and enhanced HIV prevention and treatment programs. 

Most of the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program was preserved, as well.

The committee also rejected the administration’s plan to revamp the way the NIH pays universities, medical schools and other research centers.

The president has invoked executive orders against “gender ideology”, “child mutilation,” and DEI, along with accusations of anti-Jewish behavior and threats of withholding NIH funding in his crusade against universities, their associated medical schools, and other research centers.

“To the scientists wondering if there will even be an NIH by the end of this administration: this committee’s resounding message is yes,” said Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), the committee’s vice chair.  

“Congress has your back — we’re not going to give up the fight against cancer, Alzheimer’s, or rare diseases,” Murray said. 

Carl Schmid, executive director of the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute, was cautiously optimistic following the committee’s bipartisan rebuke of the president’s funding priorities.

“We are pleased that senators of both parties recognize the critical importance of preventing HIV in the United States and the value of nationwide surveillance, testing, education, and PrEP programs,” he said in a statement.

“The president’s proposed elimination of HIV prevention and surveillance programs, along with on and off staff and grant cuts and delays, have left HIV prevention in disarray. We hope the Senate’s vote of confidence for HIV prevention will start to bring the stability we need so that state and local health departments, other grantees, and staff can get back to doing their work.”  

0

British Columbia Offers Fast-Track Immigration for U.S. Nurses

*This is reported by Immigcanada.org

Healthcare professionals in the United States now have a faster and easier path to work in British Columbia. If you’re a U.S.-trained nurse looking for meaningful work and a stable healthcare system, B.C. just made the move more attractive than ever.

In 2025, the province launched a streamlined credential recognition process, slashing wait times from months to mere days. The result? A massive 127% surge in applications from U.S. nurses. This isn’t just policy on paper, it’s creating real change for health professionals and Canadian patients alike.

If you’ve ever considered working in Canada as a nurse, there has never been a better time.

Why B.C. Is a Top Destination for U.S. Nurses

British Columbia offers more than beautiful landscapes and mild winters. It provides a public healthcare system that values stability, team-based care, and inclusivity, qualities many U.S. nurses now actively seek.

Here’s what makes B.C. stand out:

  • Fast-Track Registration: Nurses can now register with the BC College of Nurses and Midwives in a matter of days.
  • No Third-Party Delays: The new process removes the need for lengthy third-party credential assessments.
  • Direct Database Access: Regulators can now verify your education, employment, and exam history directly.
  • Supportive Relocation Help: Health Match BC provides free personalized guidance through the entire process.

See also Canada’s Rising Reliance on Low-Wage Migrant Workers

This combination of speed, support, and stability is why over 1,200 healthcare professionals from the U.S., including 413 nurses, have already shown interest.

How the New System Works

Instead of going through multiple layers of red tape, U.S. nurses can now apply directly to the college. B.C.’s healthcare authorities work closely with American regulators to confirm your credentials using shared systems.

This efficient model is designed not only to bring in talent faster but also to ensure quality and safety remain intact. The ultimate goal? More boots on the ground in critical care areas such as cancer treatment, emergency departments, and rural clinics.

Here’s a quick comparison:

Process StepOld SystemNew System
Registration Timeline3–4 monthsFew days
Third-party AssessmentRequiredEliminated
Credential VerificationManualAutomated via database
Support for ApplicantsLimitedFull support via Health Match BC

Real Opportunities for Real People

Whether you’re from Washington, Oregon, or California, B.C. wants you. A major recruitment campaign is launching soon in these states, targeting areas where interest is already high.

See also Canada Expands International Experience Canada Program for Japanese Youth

This isn’t just about filling vacancies. It’s about building a better healthcare system, one that supports team-based care and is culturally aware, inclusive, and patient-first.

Take the new Victoria Primary Care Network Allied Health Centre as an example. Here, nurses, physicians, social workers, and Indigenous wellness providers work side by side to offer complete care. It’s the kind of environment many nurses dream of but struggle to find in the U.S.

Who Is Eligible to Apply?

To qualify for this fast-tracked process, U.S. nurses need:

  • Proof of nursing education from an accredited U.S. institution
  • Active nursing license in good standing
  • No disciplinary action on record
  • Willingness to live and work in British Columbia

Want to check your eligibility? Book a consultation with RCIC through ImmigCanada and speak with a licensed expert who can guide you every step of the way.

See also PEI Seeks Public Input on Next Phase of Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act

Why More U.S. Nurses Are Moving North

Besides the improved process, many American healthcare professionals are leaving behind the U.S. system for reasons like:

  • Political uncertainty affecting healthcare rights
  • Rising health insurance costs
  • Limited access to team-based care in underfunded facilities

British Columbia offers a safe, stable, and inclusive alternative. Plus, with competitive salaries, government support, and fast registration, it’s not just an option, it’s a smart move.

Ready to Start Your New Life in Canada?

If you’re a qualified nurse in the U.S. and looking for a rewarding career shift, this is your chance. British Columbia is actively welcoming U.S. nurses with open arms and an efficient path to employment.

B.C. Offers Fast-Track Immigration for U.S. Nurses Canada is calling, and British Columbia is leading the way with fast-track immigration for U.S. nurses. With high demand, faster registration, and full relocation support, now is the time to make your move. Contact ImmigCanada to book a consultation with RCIC and take the first step toward a secure and rewarding future in Canadian healthcare.

0

Poll of scientists shows large majority weighing leaving US

*This is being reported by The Hill.

More than three-quarters of scientists in the U.S are weighing leaving the country and are looking at Europe and Canada as their top relocation spots, according to a survey released Thursday. 

The scientific journal Nature poll found that 75.3 percent of scientists are considering leaving the U.S. after the administration cut funding for research. Nearly a quarter of respondents, 24.7 percent, disagreed. 

The highest contingent of researchers who are looking to move out of the country were those who are early in their careers. Nearly 550, out of 690 who responded to the survey, said they are considering leaving the U.S. Out of the 340 Ph.D. students, 255 shared the same inclination, the poll found.

The administration, along with tech billionaire and close Trump adviser Elon Musk, with the help of the Department of Government Efficiency, has terminated entire agencies and made cuts in the last two months in an effort to shrink the size and scope of the federal government.

Some of those reductions were felt at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), where all grants for equity issues, which encompass studying Black maternal health and HIV, were canceled. The cap on indirect costs of NIH grants was capped at 15 percent. 

The NIH was also ordered recently to halt efforts to terminate the funding for grants intended for hospitals, universities and other institutions by a federal judge after numerous lawsuits. 

Former Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said she was concerned about the recent cuts to grants flowing through the NIH. 

“I’m worried on a lot of fronts,” Sebelius said Wednesday. “The kinds of cuts that were just announced are devastating and will set science back and set research back.”

These cuts have also affected the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which has been hit with layoffs.

More than three-quarters of Americans, 76 percent, said they have a great or fair amount of confidence in scientists to do what is best for the public, according to a Pew Research Center survey that was published in mid-November last year. The figure was a minor uptick from October 2023, when 73 percent of respondents said the same. 

Around 1,650 people responded to Nature’s survey. The margin of error and the dates the survey was conducted were not available to The Hill.

0

Trump administration cancels at least 68 grants focused on LGBTQ health questions

*This is reported by WFMY 2.

 A surge of grant cancellations hit researchers focused on the health of gay, lesbian and transgender people last week, as the Trump administration continues to target what it describes as ideologically driven science.

Last week the U.S. government terminated at least 68 grants to 46 institutions totaling nearly $40 million when awarded, according to a government website. Some of the grant money has already been spent, but at least $1.36 million in future support was yanked as a result of the cuts, a significant undercount because estimates were available for less than a third of grants.

Most were in some way related to sexual minorities, including research focused on HIV prevention. Other canceled studies centered on cancer, youth suicide and bone health.

Health and Human Services spokesman Andrew Nixon said the agency is “dedicated to restoring our agencies to their tradition of upholding gold-standard, evidence-based science.” The grants were awarded by the National Institutes of Health, an agency under HHS.

One canceled project at Vanderbilt University had been following the overall health of more than 1,200 LGBTQ people age 50 and older. Most of the money has been spent from the grant funding the project, but it was up for renewal in April, said Tara McKay, who leads Vanderbilt’s LGBTQ+ Policy Lab.

She said the grant won’t be renewed because of the termination, which jeopardizes any long-term results. Still, the Vanderbilt project had already generated two dozen published papers, including work used to train doctors to provide better care to LGBTQ people, increasing the likelihood of cancer screenings and other preventive care.

“That saves us a lot of money in health care and saves lives,” McKay said.

Insights from minority populations can increase knowledge that affects everyone, said Simon Rosser, who studies cancer in gay and bisexual men at the University of Minnesota.

“We now no longer have anywhere studying LGBT cancer in the United States,” said Rosser, who saw his grants canceled on Friday.

“When you decide to cancel all the grants on sexual minorities, you really slow down scientific discovery, for everyone,” Rosser said. Young researchers will lose their jobs, and the field as a whole will suffer, he added.

“It’s a loss of a whole generation of science,” Rosser said.

Termination letters seen by The Associated Press gave as reasons that the research was “unscientific” or did “nothing to enhance the health of many Americans.”

That language felt personal and stinging, McKay said.

“My project’s been accused of having no benefit to the American people. And, you know, queer and trans folks are Americans also,” McKay said.

0

US drops to record low in 2025 World Happiness Report: See global rankings

*This is being reported by USA Today.

The United States is continuing its downward path on the global World Happiness Report, having dropped to a record low on the global rankings list.

Last year, the U.S. fell out of the top 20 for the first time in the report’s history, landing at No. 23. The 2025 report, published Thursday, shows Americans dropping another level down to No. 24.

Several organizations conduct the annual report that ranks countries from the most to least overall happiness. Once again, Nordic countries lead the list, dominating the top 4 spots.

The World Happiness Report also shares illuminating information such as the fact that declining joy and social trust is a contributor to a rise of political polarization in the U.S. and parts of Europe.

Here’s what to know what about this year’s report, including the global rankings and how researchers calculate joy.

Who are the 25 happiest countries?

  1. Finland
  2. Denmark
  3. Iceland
  4. Sweden
  5. Netherlands
  6. Costa Rica
  7. Norway
  8. Israel
  9. Luxembourg
  10. Mexico
  11. Australia
  12. New Zealand
  13. Switzerland
  14. Belgium
  15. Ireland
  16. Lithuania
  17. Austria
  18. Canada
  19. Slovenia
  20. Czechia
  21. United Arab Emirates
  22. Germany
  23. United Kingdom
  24. United States
  25. Belize

Costa Rica and Mexico enter the top 10 for first time

Costa Rica and Mexico both made their top 10 debut on the World Happiness Report this year, coming in at the No. 6 and No. 10 spots, respectively.

European nations Lithuania (No. 16), Slovenia (No. 19) and Czechia (No. 20) are continuing upward trends, according to the report.

The report also listed three nations that have improved happiness since the ranking began in 2012: Serbia (No. 31), Bulgaria (No. 81), and Georgia (No. 91).

What increases happiness in countries?

Several factors are linked to overall wellbeing, from meal sharing to income and employment status, according to the report.

The report states that households of four to five people typically enjoy the highest happiness levels in Mexico and Europe, though many people in Europe live on their own. Researchers also suggest that social connections are vital for young adults to avoid the toxic effects of stress.

The report suggests that countries where acts of generosity and kindness are frequent often lead to less despair related deaths such as suicide or drug overdose.

What is the World Happiness Report?

The World Happiness Report is a partnership between Gallup, the University of Oxford’s Wellbeing Research Centre, the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and the WHR (World Happiness Report) Editorial Board offering insight on happiness levels globally.

“The World Happiness Report reflects a worldwide demand for more attention to happiness and well-being as criteria for government policy,” according to its website. “It reviews the state of happiness in the world today and shows how the science of happiness explains personal and national variations in happiness.”

How do World Happiness Report researchers measure happiness?

According to the UN’s Sustainable Development Solutions Network, global researchers analyze data from the Gallup World Poll.

The poll gathers responses from over 100,000 people from all around the world.

People in different countries rank their happiness by imagining a ladder with 10 steps. The first and lowest step of the ladder represents the worst of the worst a person’s life can be. The tenth and highest step represents a person’s best life. Researchers then ask people which step they believe they’re on.

World Happiness Report: What factors impact happiness?

The UN’s Sustainable Development Solutions Network lists six factors that can explain the different levels of happiness.

  • Social Support: This is the best predictor of happiness. If people feel like they have at least one person they can reach out to when they’re in need, they are more likely to feel secure.
  • GDP per capita: This is how much a country produces divided by its population.
  • A healthy life expectancy: Researchers look at the physical and mental health of a country’s population.
  • Freedom to make life choices: This plays a key role in how happy one feels.
  • Generosity: This factor looks at how charitable a country’s people are.
  • Perception of Corruption: How corrupt are a country’s government and business policies? This factor looks at both and researchers use what they find to estimate happiness levels.
0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑