2 research outputs found

    Impact of state mandatory insurance coverage on the use of diabetes preventive care

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>46 U.S. states and the District of Columbia have passed laws and regulations mandating that health insurance plans cover diabetes treatment and preventive care. Previous research on state mandates suggested that these policies had little impact, since many health plans already covered the benefits. Here, we analyze the contents of and model the effect of state mandates. We examined how state mandates impacted the likelihood of using three types of diabetes preventive care: annual eye exams, annual foot exams, and performing daily self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We collected information on diabetes benefits specified in state mandates and time the mandates were enacted. To assess impact, we used data that the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System gathered between 1996 and 2000. 4,797 individuals with self-reported diabetes and covered by private insurance were included; 3,195 of these resided in the 16 states that passed state mandates between 1997 and 1999; 1,602 resided in the 8 states or the District of Columbia without state mandates by 2000. Multivariate logistic regression models (with state fixed effect, controlling for patient demographic characteristics and socio-economic status, state characteristics, and time trend) were used to model the association between passing state mandates and the usage of the forms of diabetes preventive care, both individually and collectively.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>All 16 states that passed mandates between 1997 and 1999 required coverage of diabetic monitors and strips, while 15 states required coverage of diabetes self management education. Only 1 state required coverage of periodic eye and foot exams. State mandates were positively associated with a 6.3 (P = 0.04) and a 5.8 (P = 0.03) percentage point increase in the probability of privately insured diabetic patient's performing SMBG and simultaneous receiving all three preventive care, respectively; state mandates were not significantly associated with receiving annual diabetic eye (0.05 percentage points decrease, P = 0.92) or foot exams (2.3 percentage points increase, P = 0.45).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Effects of state mandates varied by preventive care type, with state mandates being associated with a small increase in SMBG. We found no evidence that state mandates were effective in increasing receipt of annual eye or foot exams. The small or non-significant effects might be attributed to small numbers of insured people not having the benefits prior to the mandates' passage. If state mandates' purpose is to provide improved benefits to many persons, policy makers should consider determining the number of people who might benefit prior to passing the mandate.</p

    What is the role of general practice in addressing youth mental health? A discussion paper

    No full text
    Background. Mental and substance use disorders are a leading cause of morbidity among young people. Policy and clinical services in Ireland are endeavouring to address theses twin issues. Aims. To review the emerging literature on the role of general practice in addressing youth mental health and to discuss the implications of this literature for further research, education and service delivery. Methods. We conducted a review of ‘PubMed’ and a web search of relevant national / international primary / mental healthcare agencies and professional bodies. Results. Although general practice has an important role in addressing youth mental health, there are challenges in how young people seek help. Specifically, young people do not engage with healthcare agencies and many factors which act as barriers and enablers in this regard have been identified. The detection and treatment of mental and substance use disorders by GPs can be improved and implementing interventions to improve screening and early intervention are likely to be valuable. Conclusions. General practice is a central agency in addressing youth mental health and complex multifaceted interventions (education, clinical guidelines, promoting awareness) are likely to support its role. Further research exploring this issue is a priority
    corecore