19 research outputs found

    New Mexico: Round 1 - State-Level Field Network Study of the Implementation of the Affordable Care Act

    Get PDF
    This report is part of a series of 21 state and regional studies examining the rollout of the ACA. The national network -- with 36 states and 61 researchers -- is led by the Rockefeller Institute of Government, the public policy research arm of the State University of New York, the Brookings Institution, and the Fels Institute of Government at the University of Pennsylvania.New Mexico is no longer one of the key battleground states as it has moved more Democratic in recent presidential races, a trend driven by Latino population growth and a shift to the Democratic Party among that population. During the 2013 legislative session, Senate Bill 221 passed and authorized the establishment of a state-run New Mexico Health Insurance Exchange (NMHIX). On March 28, 2013, the governor signed Senate Bill 221 into law. Another major ACA-related decision involved Medicaid. Given the aggressive opposition from other Republican governors to the ACA, MartĂ­nez surprised some observers when she announced in early 2013 that New Mexico would expand Medicaid as long as the federal government provided the funding for the initial expansion

    Can Social Policies Improve Health? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 38 Randomized Trials.

    Get PDF
    Policy Points Social policies might not only improve economic well-being, but also health. Health policy experts have therefore advocated for investments in social policies both to improve population health and potentially reduce health system costs. Since the 1960s, a large number of social policies have been experimentally evaluated in the United States. Some of these experiments include health outcomes, providing a unique opportunity to inform evidence-based policymaking. Our comprehensive review and meta-analysis of these experiments find suggestive evidence of health benefits associated with investments in early life, income support, and health insurance interventions. However, most studies were underpowered to detect health outcomes. CONTEXT: Insurers and health care providers are investing heavily in nonmedical social interventions in an effort to improve health and potentially reduce health care costs. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all known randomized social experiments in the United States that included health outcomes. We reviewed 5,880 papers, reports, and data sources, ultimately including 61 publications from 38 randomized social experiments. After synthesizing the main findings narratively, we conducted risk of bias analyses, power analyses, and random-effects meta-analyses where possible. Finally, we used multivariate regressions to determine which study characteristics were associated with statistically significant improvements in health outcomes. FINDINGS: The risk of bias was low in 17 studies, moderate in 11, and high in 33. Of the 451 parameter estimates reported, 77% were underpowered to detect health outcomes. Among adequately powered parameters, 49% demonstrated a significant health improvement, 44% had no effect on health, and 7% were associated with significant worsening of health. In meta-analyses, early life and education interventions were associated with a reduction in smoking (odds ratio [OR] = 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-0.99). Income maintenance and health insurance interventions were associated with significant improvements in self-rated health (OR = 1.20, 95% CI 1.06-1.36, and OR = 1.38, 95% CI 1.10-1.73, respectively), whereas some welfare-to-work interventions had a negative impact on self-rated health (OR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.66-0.90). Housing and neighborhood trials had no effect on the outcomes included in the meta-analyses. A positive effect of the trial on its primary socioeconomic outcome was associated with higher odds of reporting health improvements. We found evidence of publication bias for studies with null findings. CONCLUSIONS: Early life, income, and health insurance interventions have the potential to improve health. However, many of the included studies were underpowered to detect health effects and were at high or moderate risk of bias. Future social policy experiments should be better designed to measure the association between interventions and health outcomes

    Improving Adult Vaccination Status in the United States

    No full text
    Adult immunization practices leave much to be desired. Misinformation has increased mistrust. As a result, Latino and African American populations have low rates of annual flu vaccinations and, during the COVID-19 pandemic, lag behind for COVID-19 vaccination. Historically, healthcare staff have failed to adhere to adult immunization guidelines contributing to patient infections. Healthcare staff, both clinical and non-clinical, must lead by example by making “prevention primary”. Most adults may not realize they need immunizations. We recommend the following steps to increase immunization uptake: Make adult immunization a standard of patient care as we do for children. Assess immunization status at every clinical opportunity. Strongly recommend vaccinations needed. Administer needed vaccinations, multiple if warranted. Document vaccines received by your patient. Participate in your state’s immunization registry and work with community organizations that can help make adult immunization the norm

    Prepaid group practice effects on the utilization of medical services and health outcomes for children: results from a controlled trial

    No full text
    A total of 693 children between the ages of 0 and 13 years were randomly assigned to either a staff model HMO or to one of several fee-for-service insurance plans in Seattle to evaluate differences in medical expenditures and health outcomes. Although the fee-for-service plans varied the amount of cost sharing (0% to 95%), all children were covered for the same medical services, for either 3 or 5 years. No differences in imputed total expenditures were observed for children assigned to the HMO or any of the fee-for-service plans. Children with cost-sharing fee-for-service plans, however, had fewer medical contacts and received fewer preventive services than those assigned to the HMO. Nonetheless, children with the cost-sharing fee-for-service plans were perceived (by their mothers) to be in better health overall than those assigned to the HMO. No significant differences regarding physiological outcomes (eg, visual acuity, hemoglobin level) were observed between the two groups. The results of this experiment neither strongly support nor indict fee-for-service or prepaid care for children

    Consequences of cost-sharing for children\u27s health

    No full text
    Do children whose families bear a percentage of their health care costs reduce their use of ambulatory care compared with those families who receive free care? If so, does the reduction affect their health? To answer these questions, 1,844 children aged 0 to 13 years were randomly assigned (for a period of 3 or 5 years) to one of 14 insurance plans. The plans differed in the percentage of their medical bills that families paid. One plan provided free care. The others required up to 95% coinsurance subject to a +1,000 maximum. Children whose families paid a percentage of costs reduced use by up to one third. For the typical child in the study, this reduction caused no significant difference in either parental perceptions of their child\u27s health or in physiologic measures of health. Confidence intervals are sufficiently narrow for most measures to rule out the possibility that large true differences went undetected. Nor were statistically significant differences observed for children at risk of disease. Wider confidence intervals for these comparisons, however, mean that clinically meaningful differences, if present, could have been undetected in certain subgroups
    corecore