Did Medicaid Expansion Close African American-white Health Care Disparities Nationwide? A Scoping Review

Objectives: To investigate the impact of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) Medicaid expansion on African Americanwhite disparities in health coverage, access to healthcare, receipt of treatment, and health outcomes. Design: A search of research reports, following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines, identified twenty-six national studies investigating changes in health care disparities between African American and white non-disabled, non-elderly adults before and after ACA Medicaid expansion, comparing states that did and did not expand Medicaid. Analysis examined research design and findings. Results: Whether Medicaid eligibility expansion reduced African American-white health coverage disparities remains an open question: Absolute disparities in coverage appear to have declined in expansion states, although exceptions have been reported. African American disparities in health access, treatment, or health outcomes showed little evidence of change for the general population. Conclusions: Future research addressing key weaknesses in existing research may help to uncover sources of continuing disparities and clarify the impact of future Medicaid expansion on African American health care disparities

Sex differences in the association between sexual violence victimization and suicidal behaviors among adolescents

The objective of this study was to examine sex differences in the association between sexual violence victimization and suicidal ideation and suicide attempt among adolescents. Data for this study came from the 2017 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey. An analytic sample of 10,475 adolescents aged 14–18 years (52.3% female) was analyzed. We used binary logistic regression to examine the association between sexual violence victimization and suicidal ideation and suicide attempt. We adjusted for the complexity of the sampling design and handled missing data using Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations. About 18% of adolescents experienced suicidal ideation and 7.5% attempted suicide during the past 12 months. About one in ten adolescents (15.5% of females versus 3.6% of males) experienced sexual violence. Controlling for other factors, the odds of reporting suicidal ideation were 1.86 times higher for females who experienced sexual violence (AOR=1.86, 95% CI=1.44–2.42) when compared to their non-victimized counterparts. Females who experienced sexual violence had almost double the odds of making a suicide attempt (AOR=1.94, 95% CI=1.43–2.65) whereas males who experienced sexual violence had more than threefold higher odds of making a suicide attempt (AOR=3.32, 95% CI=2.17–5.08). Understanding the association between sexual violence victimization and suicidal behaviors could contribute to early identification of adolescents who may be at risk of engaging in suicidal behaviors

Keeping Kids at Home, in School, and Out of Trouble: Funding Home and Community-Based Care for Non-Medicaid Eligible Youth with Complex Behavioral Healthcare Needs

It is estimated that approximately 8 to12% of all youth can be classified as severely emotionally disturbed (SED) (Costello, Egger, & Angold, 2005; Kessler et al., 2012). These youth exhibit a wide range of mental health disorders and symptoms (e.g., depression, anxiety, difficulty with emotion regulation or executive functioning) (Costello et al., 2005), and the extent to which to which their functioning is impaired by these symptoms and challenges varies widely (Williams, Scott, & Aarons, 2017). Only 25% of any of these children and adolescents ever access any outpatient mental health treatment (Costello et al., 2005; Costello, Messer, Bird, Cohen, & Reinherz, 1998) and even fewer obtain the intensive Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) needed to keep youth with the most significant impairments safely in their home and communities (Owens et al., 2002; Spiker, 2017). Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) often include in-home therapy, case management, or therapeutic behavioral support services (Kernan, Griswold, & Wagner, 2003; Marcenko, Keller, & Delaney, 2001). Without HCBS, youth with the most significant behavioral healthcare needs are at greater risk for chronic or long-term placement in a residential setting in either a psychiatric, correctional, or foster placement (Hansen, Litzelman, Marsh, & Milspaw, 2004; Knitzer & Olson, 1982; Narrow et al., 1998). Many families cite expense and lack of sufficient health coverage as barriers to service use (Owens et al., 2002; Spiker, 2017). The only type of health coverage that routinely covers HCBS is Medicaid (Howell, 2004), leaving these services mostly inaccessible to families whose incomes are above the Medicaid means-test limits. In order to access public health insurance to fund the intensive mental health care needed for their child, many parents relinquish custody to the state—either through the child welfare or juvenile justice system (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2003).States use a variety of policy interventions to reduce income barriers to HCBS for these youth, including Medicaid waivers, the TEFRA provision, and State Plan Amendments (Friesen, Giliberti, Katz-Leavy, Osher, & Pullmann, 2003; Ireys, Pires, & Lee, 2006). However, little is known about these strategies or state motivations for choosing one policy over another. Limited evaluation also exists regarding their relative effectiveness at meeting the needs of these youth and their families. Having knowledge of the variety of policy tools available to states and how states utilize these tools, as well as the factors that increase the likelihood that a state will opt to use a particular tool, will allow future research to control for such variables, and better discern the effects of the policy on state level mental health system outcomes. This two-part mixed methods study aims to discern state policies that are more and less effective at reducing access barriers to home and community-based mental health care for non-Medicaid eligible youth with SED. The first, qualitative portion of the study aims to 1) identify policy mechanisms utilized by states to deliver HCBS to youth with SED and their families, particularly for youth whose family income disqualifies them for Medicaid and 2) understand what motivates State Mental Health Authorities and Medicaid Agencies to utilize current policy tools and structures for HCBS delivery for both Medicaid and non-Medicaid eligible youth with SED. The second, quantitative analysis seeks to 1) assess the relationship between a state’s use of a Medicaid waiver and the odds that a youth with SED will have public health coverage, 2) assess the relationship between public health coverage and unmet mental health care needs and cost barriers to care for youth with SED, and 3) assess the direct relationship between a youth’s residence in a state with a Medicaid waiver, and the odds that the youth will have unmet mental health care needs and cost barriers to care.Part I of this study gathered qualitative data through semi-structured interviews with officials from 32 state mental health systems about policy tactics for funding and delivering HCBS to Medicaid and non-Medicaid eligible youth with SED in their state. Interviews also gathered information about each state administration’s motivation and history that shaped the use of current HCBS policies for this population. Part II of the study utilized data created from information and observations in Part I in conjunction with data from the National Survey for Children with Special Health Care Needs from 2009/2010. Multi-level, random-intercept logistic regression models assessed the relationship between Medicaid waivers and unmet mental health care needs and cost barriers to treatment for youth with SED. Results indicate that states use many strategies for funding and organizing care for the non-Medicaid eligible population of youth with SED, but that strategies generally involve the allocation of state general revenue funds or the use of a policy that expands the financial eligibility limits of Medicaid for children. Reasons for the use of each approach are most related to the size and flexibility of Medicaid budgets, political prioritization of children and families, and political ideology related to the role of the state in providing for the welfare of children and families. The quantitative analysis found that policies expanding financial eligibility for Medicaid were related to reductions in cost-related barriers to treatment, even controlling for the mediating effect of these policies in changing the insurance status of children. However, the use of these policies and a child's coverage under public health insurance was not significantly predictive of reduced odds of having unmet mental health care needs. By controlling for the severity of a child's mental health care needs, and the interaction between their level of need and type of health insurance coverage, this analysis also highlighted the role of clinical severity in unmet treatment needs and barriers to care and the ways in which public insurance moderated this relationship.This study concludes that, though states have many means of funding care for non-Medicaid eligible youth with complex behavioral healthcare needs and have various reasons specific to state environments for choosing a particular approach, states with policies that allow children to more easily access Medicaid appear to have fewer families experiencing cost barriers to mental health services. However, these state policies do not address other, unknown barriers to obtaining mental health services for families in their states. Expansion of Medicaid eligibility for children can help to reduce unmet need due to financial obstacles but does not solve all problems related to service accessibility. Additional barriers to treatment access must be identified at the individual, organizational and policy levels for children with all levels of clinical need. Policies and practices aimed at reducing these must be identified and implemented in the manner most suitable and applicable to the unique political, fiscal, and structural concerns of each state and community. Then, these practices and policies must be rigorously evaluated for effectiveness in achieving equitable access to high quality and effective mental health treatment for all children with behavioral health concerns

Keeping Kids at Home, in School, and Out of Trouble: Funding Home and Community-Based Care for Non-Medicaid Eligible Youth with Complex Behavioral Healthcare Needs

It is estimated that approximately 8 to12% of all youth can be classified as severely emotionally disturbed (SED) (Costello, Egger, & Angold, 2005; Kessler et al., 2012). These youth exhibit a wide range of mental health disorders and symptoms (e.g., depression, anxiety, difficulty with emotion regulation or executive functioning) (Costello et al., 2005), and the extent to which to which their functioning is impaired by these symptoms and challenges varies widely (Williams, Scott, & Aarons, 2017). Only 25% of any of these children and adolescents ever access any outpatient mental health treatment (Costello et al., 2005; Costello, Messer, Bird, Cohen, & Reinherz, 1998) and even fewer obtain the intensive Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) needed to keep youth with the most significant impairments safely in their home and communities (Owens et al., 2002; Spiker, 2017). Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) often include in-home therapy, case management, or therapeutic behavioral support services (Kernan, Griswold, & Wagner, 2003; Marcenko, Keller, & Delaney, 2001). Without HCBS, youth with the most significant behavioral healthcare needs are at greater risk for chronic or long-term placement in a residential setting in either a psychiatric, correctional, or foster placement (Hansen, Litzelman, Marsh, & Milspaw, 2004; Knitzer & Olson, 1982; Narrow et al., 1998). Many families cite expense and lack of sufficient health coverage as barriers to service use (Owens et al., 2002; Spiker, 2017). The only type of health coverage that routinely covers HCBS is Medicaid (Howell, 2004), leaving these services mostly inaccessible to families whose incomes are above the Medicaid means-test limits. In order to access public health insurance to fund the intensive mental health care needed for their child, many parents relinquish custody to the state—either through the child welfare or juvenile justice system (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2003).States use a variety of policy interventions to reduce income barriers to HCBS for these youth, including Medicaid waivers, the TEFRA provision, and State Plan Amendments (Friesen, Giliberti, Katz-Leavy, Osher, & Pullmann, 2003; Ireys, Pires, & Lee, 2006). However, little is known about these strategies or state motivations for choosing one policy over another. Limited evaluation also exists regarding their relative effectiveness at meeting the needs of these youth and their families. Having knowledge of the variety of policy tools available to states and how states utilize these tools, as well as the factors that increase the likelihood that a state will opt to use a particular tool, will allow future research to control for such variables, and better discern the effects of the policy on state level mental health system outcomes. This two-part mixed methods study aims to discern state policies that are more and less effective at reducing access barriers to home and community-based mental health care for non-Medicaid eligible youth with SED. The first, qualitative portion of the study aims to 1) identify policy mechanisms utilized by states to deliver HCBS to youth with SED and their families, particularly for youth whose family income disqualifies them for Medicaid and 2) understand what motivates State Mental Health Authorities and Medicaid Agencies to utilize current policy tools and structures for HCBS delivery for both Medicaid and non-Medicaid eligible youth with SED. The second, quantitative analysis seeks to 1) assess the relationship between a state’s use of a Medicaid waiver and the odds that a youth with SED will have public health coverage, 2) assess the relationship between public health coverage and unmet mental health care needs and cost barriers to care for youth with SED, and 3) assess the direct relationship between a youth’s residence in a state with a Medicaid waiver, and the odds that the youth will have unmet mental health care needs and cost barriers to care.Part I of this study gathered qualitative data through semi-structured interviews with officials from 32 state mental health systems about policy tactics for funding and delivering HCBS to Medicaid and non-Medicaid eligible youth with SED in their state. Interviews also gathered information about each state administration’s motivation and history that shaped the use of current HCBS policies for this population. Part II of the study utilized data created from information and observations in Part I in conjunction with data from the National Survey for Children with Special Health Care Needs from 2009/2010. Multi-level, random-intercept logistic regression models assessed the relationship between Medicaid waivers and unmet mental health care needs and cost barriers to treatment for youth with SED. Results indicate that states use many strategies for funding and organizing care for the non-Medicaid eligible population of youth with SED, but that strategies generally involve the allocation of state general revenue funds or the use of a policy that expands the financial eligibility limits of Medicaid for children. Reasons for the use of each approach are most related to the size and flexibility of Medicaid budgets, political prioritization of children and families, and political ideology related to the role of the state in providing for the welfare of children and families. The quantitative analysis found that policies expanding financial eligibility for Medicaid were related to reductions in cost-related barriers to treatment, even controlling for the mediating effect of these policies in changing the insurance status of children. However, the use of these policies and a child's coverage under public health insurance was not significantly predictive of reduced odds of having unmet mental health care needs. By controlling for the severity of a child's mental health care needs, and the interaction between their level of need and type of health insurance coverage, this analysis also highlighted the role of clinical severity in unmet treatment needs and barriers to care and the ways in which public insurance moderated this relationship.This study concludes that, though states have many means of funding care for non-Medicaid eligible youth with complex behavioral healthcare needs and have various reasons specific to state environments for choosing a particular approach, states with policies that allow children to more easily access Medicaid appear to have fewer families experiencing cost barriers to mental health services. However, these state policies do not address other, unknown barriers to obtaining mental health services for families in their states. Expansion of Medicaid eligibility for children can help to reduce unmet need due to financial obstacles but does not solve all problems related to service accessibility. Additional barriers to treatment access must be identified at the individual, organizational and policy levels for children with all levels of clinical need. Policies and practices aimed at reducing these must be identified and implemented in the manner most suitable and applicable to the unique political, fiscal, and structural concerns of each state and community. Then, these practices and policies must be rigorously evaluated for effectiveness in achieving equitable access to high quality and effective mental health treatment for all children with behavioral health concerns

COVID-19, Social Determinants Past, Present, and Future, and African Americans' Health.

As the COVID-19 pandemic progresses, more African Americans than whites are falling ill and dying from the virus and more are losing livelihoods from the accompanying recession. The virus thereby exploits structural disadvantages, rooted partly in historical and contemporary anti-Black sentiments, working against African Americans. These include higher rates of comorbid illness and more limited health care access, higher rates of disadvantageous labor market positioning and community and housing conditions, greater exposure to long-term care residence, and higher incarceration rates. COVID-19 also exposes African Americans' greater vulnerability to recession, and possibly greater susceptibility to accompanying behavioral health problems. If they are left unaddressed, the very vulnerabilities COVID-19 exploits may perpetuate themselves. However, continuing and supplementing health and economic COVID mitigation policies can disproportionately benefit African Americans and reduce short- and long-term adverse effects. The greater impact of COVID-19 on African Americans demonstrates the consequences of pervasive social and economic inequality and marks this as a critical time to prevent further compounding of adverse effects

States’ racial resentment correlates with administrative distancing and lower rates of health plan selection in affordable care act marketplaces: a cross sectional analysis

Abstract Background In the United States, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) pursued equity in healthcare access and treatment, but ACA implementation varied, especially limiting African Americans’ gains. Marketplaces for subsidized purchase of coverage were sometimes implemented with limited outreach and enrollment assistance efforts. Reflecting state’s ACA receptivity or reluctance, state’s implementation may rest on sociopolitical stances and racial sentiments. Some states were unwilling to provide publicly supported healthcare to nonelderly, non-disabled adults— “the undeserving poor” —who evoke anti-black stereotypes. The present study assessed whether some states shunned Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplaces and implemented them less vigorously than other states, leading to fewer eligible persons selecting insurance plans. It assessed if states’ actions were motivated by racial resentment, because states connote marketplaces to be government assistance for unworthy African Americans. Methods Using marketplace and plan selection data from 2015, we rated states’ marketplace structures along a four-level continuum indicating greater acceptance of marketplaces, ranging from states assuming sole responsibility to minimal responsibility. Using national data from a four-question modern racism scale, state-wide racial resentment estimates were estimated at the state level. Analysis assessed associations between state levels of racial resentment with states’ marketplace structure. Further analysis assessed relationships between both state levels of racial resentment and states’ marketplace structure with states’ consumer plan selection rates—representing the proportion of persons eligible to enroll in insurance plans who selected a plan. Results Racial resentment was greater in states with less responsibility for the administration of the marketplaces than actively participating states. States higher in racial resentment also showed lower rates of plan selection, pointing to less commitment to implementing marketplace provisions and fulfilling the ACA’s coverage-improvement mission. Differences persisted after controlling for differences in conservatism, uninsurance, poor health, and rejection of Medicaid expansion. Conclusions Resentment of African Americans’ purported irresponsibility and entitlement to government assistance may interfere with states structuring and operating marketplaces to maximize health insurance opportunities for everyone available under the ACA. Trial registration N/A

Supporting Evidence-Informed Practice in Human Service Organizations: An Exploratory Study of Link Officers

Human service organizations seeking to infuse research and other forms of evidence into their programs often need to expand their knowledge sharing systems in order to build their absorptive capacities for new information. To promote their engagement in evidence-informed practice, human service organizations can benefit from connections with intermediary organizations that assist with the dissemination and utilization of research and the use of internal knowledge brokers, called link officers. These boundary-spanning individuals work to embed external research and internal evidence in order to address current organizational priorities and service demands. This exploratory study describes the characteristics, major activities, and perceptions of link officers connected with three pioneering intermediary organizations. Quantitative and qualitative data from a survey of 137 Canadian and UK link officers provide a profile of these professionals, including how they engage practitioners to promote evidence-informed practice and the degree to which they are supported within their organizations and by intermediary organizations. The article concludes with practice and research implications for the development of the link officer role in human service organizations