Integrating Indian Health Programs Into Medicaid Managed Care Systems

The Indian Health Service (IHS), recognizing that state Medicaid programs are rapidly purchasing managed care plans for their beneficiaries and that managed care enrollment has significant implications for both Indians and Indian health facilities, convened this Roundtable to discuss options for participation in such care. The purpose of this roundtable was to identify options to increase Medicaid managed care participation by Indian health programs. These include programs operated directly by IHS, programs operated by tribes under the Indian Self-Determination Act, and urban Indian programs under Title V of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.By design, Roundtable participants were a group with diverse backgrounds in Indian health programs, safety-net providers, (e.g. federally qualified health centers, public hospital), state Medicaid and health departments, and the managed care industry. The overall goal of the Roundtable was to determine how to increase participation in Medicaid managed care among Indian health programs while maintaining their mission and capacity to provide a comprehensive and culturally sensitive health care system for all American Indians and Alaska Natives.Some of the issues raised during the Roundtable are applicable to any health care provider who desires to participate in Medicaid managed care, while others relate generally to safety-net providers. Other issues are important to Indian health programs, as well as to Indians and tribes as consumers of health services. The group\u27s consensus was that all issues must be addressed if Indian programs are to be successful participants. The 21 issues the Roundtable identified can be clustered into five areas: 1) Indian Health Program Mission and Roles; 2) Indian Medicaid Managed Care Populations; 3) Indian Health Program Participation; 4) Legal Issues; and 5) Other Areas Needing Assistance/Training

Heterogeneity in Health Insurance Coverage Among US Latino Adults

We sought to determine the differences in observed and unobserved factors affecting rates of health insurance coverage between US Latino adults and US Latino adults of Mexican ancestry. Our hypothesis was that Latinos of Mexican ancestry have worse health insurance coverage than their non-Mexican Latino counterparts. The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) database from 1999–2007 consists of 33,847 Latinos. We compared Latinos of Mexican ancestry to non-Mexican Latinos in the initial descriptive analysis of health insurance coverage. Disparities in health insurance coverage across Latino categories were later analyzed in a multivariable logistic regression framework, which adjusts for confounding variables. The Blinder-Oaxaca technique was applied to parse out differences in health insurance coverage into observed and unobserved components. US Latinos of Mexican ancestry consistently had lower rates of health insurance coverage than did US non-Mexican Latinos. Approximately 65% of these disparities can be attributed to differences in observed characteristics of the Mexican ancestry population in the US (e.g., age, sex, income, employment status, education, citizenship, language and health condition). The remaining disparities may be attributed to unobserved heterogeneity that may include unobserved employment-related information (e.g., type of employment and firm size) and behavioral and idiosyncratic factors (e.g., risk aversion and cultural differences). This study confirmed that Latinos of Mexican ancestry were less likely to have health insurance than were non-Mexican Latinos. Moreover, while differences in observed socioeconomic and demographic factors accounted for most of these disparities, the share of unobserved heterogeneity accounted for 35% of these differences

Variations in Healthcare Access and Utilization Among Mexican Immigrants: The Role of Documentation Status

The objective of this study is to identify differences in healthcare access and utilization among Mexican immigrants by documentation status. Cross-sectional survey data are analyzed to identify differences in healthcare access and utilization across Mexican immigrant categories. Multivariable logistic regression and the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition are used to parse out differences into observed and unobserved components. Mexican immigrants ages 18 and above who are immigrants of California households and responded to the 2007 California Health Interview Survey (2,600 documented and 1,038 undocumented immigrants). Undocumented immigrants from Mexico are 27% less likely to have a doctor visit in the previous year and 35% less likely to have a usual source of care compared to documented Mexican immigrants after controlling for confounding variables. Approximately 88% of these disparities can be attributed to predisposing, enabling and need determinants in our model. The remaining disparities are attributed to unobserved heterogeneity. This study shows that undocumented immigrants from Mexico are much less likely to have a physician visit in the previous year and a usual source of care compared to documented immigrants from Mexico. The recently approved Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will not reduce these disparities unless undocumented immigrants are granted some form of legal status

Estimating the Effects of Immigration Status on Mental Health Care Utilizations in the United States

Immigration status is a likely deterrent of mental health care utilization in the United States. Using the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and National Health Interview survey from 2002 to 2006, multivariable logistic regressions were used to estimate the effects of immigration status on mental health care utilization among patients with depression or anxiety disorders. Multivariate regressions showed that immigrants were significantly less likely to take any prescription drugs, but not significantly less likely to have any physician visits compared to US-born citizens. Results also showed that improving immigrants’ health care access and health insurance coverage could potentially reduce disparities between US-born citizens and immigrants by 14–29% and 9–28% respectively. Policy makers should focus on expanding the availability of regular sources of health care and immigrant health coverage to reduce disparities on mental health care utilization. Targeted interventions should also focus on addressing immigrants’ language barriers, and providing culturally appropriate services

A Randomized Community-based Intervention Trial Comparing Faith Community Nurse Referrals to Telephone-Assisted Physician Appointments for Health Fair Participants with Elevated Blood Pressure

To measure the effect of faith community nurse referrals versus telephone-assisted physician appointments on blood pressure control among persons with elevated blood pressure at health fairs. Randomized community-based intervention trial conducted from October 2006 to October 2007 of 100 adults who had an average blood pressure reading equal to or above a systolic of 140 mm Hg or a diastolic of 90 mm Hg obtained at a faith community nurse-led church health event. Participants were randomized to either referral to a faith community nurse or to a telephone-assisted physician appointment. The average enrollment systolic blood pressure (SBP) was 149 ± 14 mm Hg, diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was 87 ± 11 mm Hg, 57% were uninsured and 25% were undiagnosed at the time of enrollment. The follow-up rate was 85% at 4 months. Patients in the faith community nurse referral arm had a 7 ± 15 mm Hg drop in SBP versus a 14 ± 15 mm Hg drop in the telephone-assisted physician appointment arm (p = 0.04). Twenty-seven percent of the patients in the faith community nurse referral arm had medication intensification compared to 32% in the telephone-assisted physician appointment arm (p = 0.98). Church health fairs conducted in low-income, multiethnic communities can identify many people with elevated blood pressure. Facilitating physician appointments for people with elevated blood pressure identified at health fairs confers a greater decrease in SBP than referral to a faith community nurse at four months

Access to Adequate Outpatient Depression Care for Mothers in the USA: A Nationally Representative Population-Based Study

Maternal depression is often untreated, resulting in serious consequences for mothers and their children. Factors associated with receipt of adequate treatment for depression were examined in a population-based sample of 2,130 mothers in the USA with depression using data from the 1996–2005 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Chi-squared analyses were used to evaluate differences in sociodemographic and health characteristics by maternal depression treatment status (none, some, and adequate). Multivariate regression was used to model the odds of receiving some or adequate treatment, compared to none. Results indicated that only 34.8% of mothers in the USA with depression received adequate treatment. Mothers not in the paid workforce and those with health insurance were more likely to receive treatment, while minority mothers and those with less education were less likely to receive treatment. Understanding disparities in receipt of adequate treatment is critical to designing effective interventions, reducing treatment inequities, and ultimately improving the mental health and health of mothers and their families

Facts, values, and Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): an update on the controversies

The Hastings Center, a bioethics research institute, is holding a series of 5 workshops to examine the controversies surrounding the use of medication to treat emotional and behavioral disturbances in children. These workshops bring together clinicians, researchers, scholars, and advocates with diverse perspectives and from diverse fields. Our first commentary in CAPMH, which grew out of our first workshop, explained our method and explored the controversies in general. This commentary, which grows out of our second workshop, explains why informed people can disagree about ADHD diagnosis and treatment. Based on what workshop participants said and our understanding of the literature, we make 8 points. (1) The ADHD label is based on the interpretation of a heterogeneous set of symptoms that cause impairment. (2) Because symptoms and impairments are dimensional, there is an inevitable "zone of ambiguity," which reasonable people will interpret differently. (3) Many other variables, from different systems and tools of diagnosis to different parenting styles and expectations, also help explain why behaviors associated with ADHD can be interpreted differently. (4) Because people hold competing views about the proper goals of psychiatry and parenting, some people will be more, and others less, concerned about treating children in the zone of ambiguity. (5) To recognize that nature has written no bright line between impaired and unimpaired children, and that it is the responsibility of humans to choose who should receive a diagnosis, does not diminish the significance of ADHD. (6) Once ADHD is diagnosed, the facts surrounding the most effective treatment are complicated and incomplete; contrary to some popular wisdom, behavioral treatments, alone or in combination with low doses of medication, can be effective in the long-term reduction of core ADHD symptoms and at improving many aspects of overall functioning. (7) Especially when a child occupies the zone of ambiguity, different people will emphasize different values embedded in the pharmacological and behavioral approaches. (8) Truly informed decision-making requires that parents (and to the extent they are able, children) have some sense of the complicated and incomplete facts regarding the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD

Promotoras as Mental Health Practitioners in Primary Care: A Multi-Method Study of an Intervention to Address Contextual Sources of Depression

We assessed the role of promotoras—briefly trained community health workers—in depression care at community health centers. The intervention focused on four contextual sources of depression in underserved, low-income communities: underemployment, inadequate housing, food insecurity, and violence. A multi-method design included quantitative and ethnographic techniques to study predictors of depression and the intervention’s impact. After a structured training program, primary care practitioners (PCPs) and promotoras collaboratively followed a clinical algorithm in which PCPs prescribed medications and/or arranged consultations by mental health professionals and promotoras addressed the contextual sources of depression. Based on an intake interview with 464 randomly recruited patients, 120 patients with depression were randomized to enhanced care plus the promotora contextual intervention, or to enhanced care alone. All four contextual problems emerged as strong predictors of depression (chi square, p < .05); logistic regression revealed housing and food insecurity as the most important predictors (odds ratios both 2.40, p < .05). Unexpected challenges arose in the intervention’s implementation, involving infrastructure at the health centers, boundaries of the promotoras’ roles, and “turf” issues with medical assistants. In the quantitative assessment, the intervention did not lead to statistically significant improvements in depression (odds ratio 4.33, confidence interval overlapping 1). Ethnographic research demonstrated a predominantly positive response to the intervention among stakeholders, including patients, promotoras, PCPs, non-professional staff workers, administrators, and community advisory board members. Due to continuing unmet mental health needs, we favor further assessment of innovative roles for community health workers