U.S. Physicians’ Views on Financing Options to Expand Health Insurance Coverage: A National Survey

Background: Physician opinion can influence the prospects for health care reform, yet there are few recent data on physician views on reform proposals or access to medical care in the United States. Objective: To assess physician views on financing options for expanding health care coverage and on access to health care. Design and Participants: Nationally representative mail survey conducted between March 2007 and October 2007 of U.S. physicians engaged in direct patient care. Measurements: Rated support for reform options including financial incentives to induce individuals to purchase health insurance and single-payer national health insurance; rated views of several dimensions of access to care. Main results: 1,675 of 3,300 physicians responded (50.8%). Only 9% of physicians preferred the current employer-based financing system. Forty-nine percent favored either tax incentives or penalties to encourage the purchase of medical insurance, and 42% preferred a government-run, taxpayer-financed single-payer national health insurance program. The majority of respondents believed that all Americans should receive needed medical care regardless of ability to pay (89%); 33% believed that the uninsured currently have access to needed care. Nearly one fifth of respondents (19.3%) believed that even the insured lack access to needed care. Views about access were independently associated with support for single-payer national health insurance. Conclusions: The vast majority of physicians surveyed supported a change in the health care financing system. While a plurality support the use of financial incentives, a substantial proportion support single payer national health insurance. These findings challenge the perception that fundamental restructuring of the U.S. health care financing system receives little acceptance by physicians

Is drinking water a risk factor for endemic cryptosporidiosis? A case-control study in the immunocompetent general population of the San Francisco Bay Area

BACKGROUND: Cryptosporidiosis, caused by Cryptosporidium, is an enteric illness that has received much attention as an infection of immunocompromised persons as well as in community outbreaks (frequently waterborne). There are, however, no studies of the risk factors for sporadic community-acquired cryptosporidiosis in the immunocompetent US population. We undertook a case-control study in the San Francisco Bay Area as part of a national study sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to ascertain the major routes of transmission for endemic cryptosporidiosis, with an emphasis on evaluating risk from drinking water. METHODS: Cases were recruited from a population-based, active surveillance system and age-matched controls were recruited using sequential random-digit dialing. Cases (n = 26) and controls (n = 62) were interviewed by telephone using a standardized questionnaire that included information about the following exposures: drinking water, recreational water, food items, travel, animal contact, and person-to-person fecal contact, and (for adults) sexual practices. RESULTS: In multivariate conditional logistic regression analyses no significant association with drinking water was detected. The major risk factor for cryptosporidiosis in the San Francisco Bay Area was travel to another country (matched odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 24.1 [2.6, 220]). CONCLUSION: The results of this study do not support the hypothesis that drinking water is an independent risk factor for cryptosporidiosis among the immunocompetent population. These findings should be used to design larger studies of endemic cryptosporidiosis to elucidate the precise mechanisms of transmission, whether waterborne or other

Cost-effectiveness of tuberculosis evaluation and treatment of newly-arrived immigrants

BACKGROUND: Immigrants to the U.S. are required to undergo overseas screening for tuberculosis (TB), but the value of evaluation and treatment following entry to the U.S. is not well understood. We determined the cost-effectiveness of domestic follow-up of immigrants identified as tuberculosis suspects through overseas screening. METHODS: Using a stochastic simulation for tuberculosis reactivation, transmission, and follow-up for a hypothetical cohort of 1000 individuals, we calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness of follow-up and evaluation interventions. We utilized published literature, California Reports of Verified Cases of Tuberculosis (RVCTs), demographic estimates from the California Department of Finance, Medicare reimbursement, and Medi-Cal reimbursement rates. Our target population was legal immigrants to the United States, our time horizon is twenty years, and our perspective was that of all domestic health-care payers. We examined the intervention to offer latent tuberculosis therapy to infected individuals, to increase the yield of domestic evaluation, and to increase the starting and completion rates of LTBI therapy with INH (isoniazid). Our outcome measures were the number of cases averted, the number of deaths averted, the incremental dollar cost (year 2004), and the number of quality-adjusted life-years saved. RESULTS: Domestic follow-up of B-notification patients, including LTBI treatment for latently infected individuals, is highly cost-effective, and at times, cost-saving. B-notification follow-up in California would reduce the number of new tuberculosis cases by about 6–26 per year (out of a total of approximately 3000). Sensitivity analysis revealed that domestic follow-up remains cost-effective when the hepatitis rates due to INH therapy are over fifteen times our best estimates, when at least 0.4 percent of patients have active disease and when hospitalization of cases detected through domestic follow-up is no less likely than hospitalization of passively detected cases. CONCLUSION: While the current immigration screening program is unlikely to result in a large change in case rates, domestic follow-up of B-notification patients, including LTBI treatment, is highly cost-effective. If as many as three percent of screened individuals have active TB, and early detection reduces the rate of hospitalization, net savings may be expected