This article about health coverage I believe goes upstream, but could have continued going further. This author presents the fact that cancer has killed less people as years go on. He also states that less smoking, healthy eating and early detection are three reasons why hundreds of thousands of people are surviving cancer annually. However, I believe this article could have continued going upstream if they would have reported on how many more people are detecting early signs of cancer and getting treated and what processes is being done to detect this disease.

The social issue of cancer was pushed upstream in this article because the factors that are increasing survivor rates were looked at and discussed in depth. There was enough context to make this brief story be relevant and important to the rest of society. It provided statistics and expert opinions and offered solutions as to how the issue will improve in society in the future as well. The article could have benefited from another source with sentimental appeal since the idea that cancer is becoming more curable is very inspiring. Overall, this article did a good job of conveying the the news in an appropriate and newsworthy fashion.

While this story has quotes from the CDC, I lacks additional evidence to support the claims made. It lacks substance, as well. I think the 'health officials' is disconcerting. I understand that often times people don't want to be quoted, although there may have been a better way to state the 'health official title.' It can be assumed that the health officials work at the CDC, but if this is the case it should be made more clear. The article lacks explanation for the increased rates of cancer survival. While one can assume certain reasons they don't explore legitimate reasons for cancer survival. I think this article is an okay blurb but not a full article.

Does this example of health coverage go upstream to address social determinants of health? If not, what steps could the reporter take to do so? Yes it is going upstream because they talk about how the CDC has reported that the numeber of cancer survivors has went up in the past years which means that more people are being treated earlier. The report could of asked what steps they are taking to get people to come in to check for cancer or what programs or non profit organiztions do they know that are working to improve the health of people in the United States.

The article can be considered good journalism; it provides its public with information. This article avoids opinions and includes facts which makes it good journalism but the facts needs more details. The article gives background information and then goes back to the lead. It includes statistics which helps the reader understand the findings. The article is short and frames the story properly, to make it look better it needs further details and more facts. Overall, this article frames health as a personal responsibility because it provides information on cancer survivors and the reason why today more people have survived from cancer. It can be framed different by talking about their social status and how it can affect the results.

This article frames health as a medical responsibility because the author explains how doctors are helping people survive cancer. Also, the quote from Dr. Tom Frieden helps supports my statement by saying that doctors cannot cure everything, but they cure as much as they can. The article can be frame differently in showing how cancer can be prevented thus focusing more on personal or societal responsibility. The author could have also spent more time on explain why each number is the way it is instead of listing a lot of facts with no support behind it.