Association of the Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansion with Trauma Outcomes and Access to Rehabilitation among Young Adults: Findings Overall, by Race and Ethnicity, and Community Income Level

BACKGROUND

Low-income young adults disproportionately experience traumatic injury and poor trauma outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion, in its first 4 years, on trauma care and outcomes in young adults, overall and by race, ethnicity, and ZIP code-level median income.

STUDY DESIGN

Statewide hospital discharge data from 5 states that did and 5 states that did not implement Medicaid expansion were used to perform difference-in-difference (DD) analyses. Changes in insurance coverage and outcomes from before (2011-2013) to after (2014-2017) Medicaid expansion and open enrollment were examined in trauma patients aged 19 to 44 years.

RESULTS

Medicaid expansion was associated with a decrease in the percentage of uninsured patients (DD -16.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -17.1 to -15.9 percentage points). This decrease was larger among Black patients but smaller among Hispanic patients than White patients. It was also larger among patients from lower-income ZIP codes (p < 0.05 for all). Medicaid expansion was associated with an increase in discharge to inpatient rehabilitation (DD 0.6 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.2 to 0.9 percentage points). This increase was larger among patients from the lowest-compared with highest-income ZIP codes (p < 0.05). Medicaid expansion was not associated with changes in in-hospital mortality or readmission or return ED visit rates overall, but was associated with decreased in-hospital mortality among Black patients (DD -0.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.8 to -0.1 percentage points).

CONCLUSIONS

The Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion, in its first 4 years, increased insurance coverage and access to rehabilitation among young adult trauma patients. It also reduced the socioeconomic disparity in inpatient rehabilitation access and the disparity in in-hospital mortality between Black and White patients.

Ensuring Access to Albuterol in Schools: From Policy to Implementation. An Official ATS/AANMA/ALA/NASN Policy Statement

Rationale: For children with asthma, access to quick-relief medications is critical to minimizing morbidity and mortality. An innovative and practical approach to ensure access at school is to maintain a supply of stock albuterol that can be used by any student who experiences respiratory distress. To make this possible, state laws allowing for stock albuterol are needed to improve medication access.

Objectives: To provide policy recommendations and outline steps for passing and implementing stock albuterol laws.

Methods: We assembled a diverse stakeholder group and reviewed guidelines, literature, statutes, regulations, and implementation documents related to school-based medication access. Stakeholders were divided into two groups—legislation and implementation—on the basis of expertise. Each group met virtually to review documents and draft recommendations. Recommendations were compiled and revised in iterative remote meetings with all stakeholders.

Main Results: We offer several recommendations for crafting state legislation and facilitating program implementation. 1) Create a coalition of stakeholders to champion legislation and implement stock albuterol programs. The coalition should include school administrators, school nurses and health personnel, parents, or caregivers of children with asthma, pediatric primary care and subspecialty providers (e.g., pulmonologists/allergists), pharmacists, health department staff, and local/regional/national advocacy organizations. 2) Legislative components critical for effective implementation of stock albuterol programs include specifying that medication can be administered in good faith to any child in respiratory distress, establishing training requirements for school staff, providing immunity from civil liability for staff and prescribers, ensuring pharmacy laws allow prescriptions to be dispensed to schools, and suggesting inhalers with valved holding chambers/spacers for administration. 3) Select an experienced and committed legislator to sponsor legislation and guide revisions as needed during passage and implementation. This person should be from the majority party and serve on the legislature’s health or education committee. 4) Develop plans to disseminate legislation and regulations/policies to affected groups, including school administrators, school nurses, pharmacists, emergency responders, and primary/subspecialty clinicians. Periodically evaluate implementation effectiveness and need for adjustments.

Conclusions: Stock albuterol in schools is a safe, practical, and potentially life-saving option for children with asthma, whether asthma is diagnosed or undiagnosed, who lack access to their personal quick-relief medication. Legislation is imperative for aiding in the adoption and implementation of school stock albuterol policies, and key policy inclusions can lay the groundwork for success. Future work should focus on passing legislation in all states, implementing policy in schools, and evaluating the impact of such programs on academic and health outcomes.

Restricting Reasons: A New Battleground in Abortion Regulation

The latest trend in abortion restrictions in the United States targets a woman's reasons for terminating a pregnancy. Fourteen states have attempted to enact laws prohibiting abortion on the basis of fetal sex, race, and/or genetic anomaly. These laws are different from regulations tied to a government interest in protecting women's health. Laws that restrict reasons implicate a different set of government interests to be weighed against a woman's constitutional right first recognized in Roe v. Wade. These laws also seek to reframe the nature of the right asserted by the woman. To date, the Supreme Court has declined to address the constitutionality of laws that restrict reasons, and the Court's most recent abortion decisions provide little guidance. It is possible that a conservative majority of the Supreme Court would uphold a law that prohibits reasons for having an abortion that appear discriminatory. But such laws would be difficult to enforce and therefore may be relegated to policy statements rejecting discriminatory norms as opposed to being effective means of restricting access to abortion.

US Nonprofit Hospitals' Community Health Needs Assessments and Implementation Strategies in the Era of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

This cross-sectional study examines the proportion of US nonprofit hospitals with community health needs assessments and implementation strategies as required by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Stabilizing and Strengthening the Affordable Care Act: Opportunities for a New Administration

For the past decade, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has successfully reduced uninsurance and improved access to and affordability of health care services for millions of Americans. But the law was weakened when the Trump administration shortened the open enrollment period in the federal Marketplace, reduced outreach and enrollment funding, and revised the public charge rule, among other actions. The Biden administration will have the chance to reverse some of these changes and further strengthen the law to improve health care access and affordability. In this article, the author explores options for expanding access to affordable coverage and care for those who do not qualify for Medicaid or marketplace financial assistance and further discusses opportunities for increasing enrollment among those who are already eligible. The author also examines opportunities for expanding access to specific services, including reproductive health care, among those with insurance. Any attempts to modify or build on the ACA will likely be complicated by the ongoing coronavirus pandemic as well as slim Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, but regulatory solutions will likely be easier to achieve than those that require changes to federal law or state policy.

Understanding VA's Use of and Relationships With Community Care Providers Under the MISSION Act

BACKGROUND

Congress has enacted 2 major pieces of legislation to improve access to care for Veterans within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). As a result, the VA has undergone a major transformation in the way that care is delivered to Veterans with an increased reliance on community-based provider networks. No studies have examined the relationship between VA and contracted community providers. This study examines VA facility directors' perspectives on their successes and challenges building relationships with community providers within the VA Community Care Network (CCN).

OBJECTIVES

To understand who VA facilities partner with for community care, highlight areas of greatest need for partnerships in various regions, and identify challenges of working with community providers in the new CCN contract.

RESEARCH DESIGN

We conducted a national survey with VA facility directors to explore needs, challenges, and expectations with the CCN.

RESULTS

The most common care referred to community providers included physical therapy, chiropractic, orthopedic, ophthalmology, and acupuncture. Open-ended responses focused on 3 topics: (1) Challenges in working with community providers, (2) Strategies to maintain strong relationships with community providers, and (3) Re-engagement with community providers who no longer provide care for Veterans.

CONCLUSIONS

VA faces challenges engaging with community providers given problems with timely reimbursement of community providers, low (Medicare) reimbursement rates, and confusing VA rules related to prior authorizations and bundled services. It will be critical to identify strategies to successfully initiate and sustain relationships with community providers.

Opioid use disorder and COVID-19: Implications for policy and practice

ABSTRACT

Preliminary data suggest that opioid-related overdose deaths have increased subsequent to COVID-19. Despite national support for expanding the role of physician assistants (PAs) and NPs in serving patients with opioid use disorder, these clinicians are held to complex and stringent regulatory barriers. COVID-19 triggered significant changes from regulatory and federal agencies, yet disparate policies and regulations persist between physicians and PAs and NPs. The dual epidemics of COVID-19 and opioid use disorder highlight the inadequate infrastructure required to support patients, communities, and clinicians, and may serve as the catalyst for eliminating barriers to care.

Veterans' Use of Veterans Health Administration Primary Care in an Era of Expanding Choice

BACKGROUND

The Veterans Choice Program (VCP), aimed at improving access to care, included expanded options for Veterans to receive primary care through community providers.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to characterize and compare Veterans use of Veterans Health Administration (VA) primary care services at VA facilities and through a VA community care network (VA-CCN) provider.

RESEARCH DESIGN

This was a retrospective, observational over fiscal years (FY) 2015-2018.

SUBJECTS

Veterans receiving primary care services paid for by the VA.

MEASURES

Veteran demographic, socioeconomic and clinical factors and use of VA primary care services under the VCP each year.

RESULTS

There were 6.3 million Veterans with >54 million VA primary care visits, predominantly (98.5% of visits) at VA facility. The proportion of VA-CCN visits increased in absolute terms from 0.7% in 2015 to 2.6% in 2018. Among Veterans with any VA-CCN primary care, the proportion of VA-CCN visits increased from 22.6% to 55.3%. Logistic regression indicated that Veterans who were female, lived in rural areas, had a driving distance >40 miles, had health insurance or had a psychiatric/depression condition were more likely to receive VA-CCN primary care. Veterans who were older, identified as Black race, required to pay VA copayments, or had a higher Nosos score, were less likely to receive VA-CCN primary care.

CONCLUSION

As the VA transitions from the VCP to MISSION and VA facilities gain experience under the new contracts, attention to factors that impact Veterans' use of primary care services in different settings are important to monitor to identify access barriers and to ensure Veterans' health care needs are met.

The Impact of Community Care Referral on Time to Surgery for Veterans With Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

BACKGROUND

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) enacted policies offering Veterans care in the community, aiming to improve access challenges. However, the impact of receipt of community care on wait times for Veterans receiving surgical care is poorly understood.

OBJECTIVES

To compare wait times for surgery for Veterans with carpal tunnel syndrome who receive VA care plus community care (mixed care) and those who receive care solely within the VA (VA-only).

RESEARCH DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SUBJECTS

Veterans undergoing carpal tunnel release (CTR) between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2016.

MEASURES

Our primary outcome was time from primary care physician (PCP) referral to CTR.

RESULTS

Of the 29,242 Veterans undergoing CTR, 23,330 (79.8%) received VA-only care and 5912 (20.1%) received mixed care. Veterans receiving mixed care had significantly longer time from PCP referral to CTR (median mixed care: 378 days; median VA-only care: 176 days, P<0.001). After controlling for patient and facility covariates, mixed care was associated with a 37% increased time from PCP referral to CTR (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.65). Each additional service provided in the community was associated with a 23% increase in time to surgery (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.78).

CONCLUSIONS

VA-only care was associated with a shorter time to surgery compared with mixed care. Moreover, there were additional delays for each service received in the community. With likely increases in Veterans seeking community care, strategies must be used to identify and mitigate sources of delay through the spectrum of care between referral and definitive treatment.

Use of Telemedicine and Smart Technology in Obstetrics: Barriers and Privacy Issues

While telemedicine had been utilized in varying ways over the last several years, it has dramatically accelerated in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this article we describe the privacy issues, in relation to the barriers to care for health care providers and barriers to the obstetric patient, licensing and payments for telehealth services, technological issues and language barriers. While there may be barriers to the use of telehealth services this type of care is feasible and the barriers are surmountable.

Did Access to Care Improve Since Passage of the Veterans Choice Act?: Differences Between Rural and Urban Veterans

BACKGROUND

The 2014 Veterans Choice Program aimed to improve care access for Veterans through expanded availability of community care (CC). Increased access to CC could particularly benefit rural Veterans, who often face obstacles in obtaining medical care at the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). However, whether Veterans Choice Program improved timely access to care for this vulnerable population is understudied.

OBJECTIVES

To examine wait times among rural and urban Veterans for 5 outpatient specialty care services representing the top requests for CC services among rural Veterans.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Retrospective study using VHA and CC outpatient consult data from VHA's Corporate Data Warehouse in Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 (October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015) and FY2018 (October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018).

SUBJECTS

All Veterans who received a new patient consult for physical therapy, cardiology, optometry, orthopedics, and/or dental services in VHA and/or CC.

MEASURES

Wait time, care setting (VHA/CC), rural/urban status, sociodemographics, and comorbidities.

RESULTS

Our sample included 1,112,876 Veterans. Between FY2015 and FY2018, mean wait times decreased for all services for both rural and urban Veterans; declines were greatest in VHA (eg, mean optometry wait times for rural Veterans in VHA vs. CC declined 8.3 vs. 6.4 d, respectively, P<0.0001). By FY2018, for both rural and urban Veterans, CC mean wait times for most services were longer than VHA wait times.

CONCLUSIONS

Timely care access for all Veterans improved between FY15 and FY18, particularly in VHA. As expansion of CC continues under the MISSION Act, more research is needed to evaluate quality of care across VHA and CC and what role, if any, wait times play.

County-level Predictors of Growth in Community-based Primary Care Use Among Veterans

BACKGROUND

The 2014 Choice Act expanded the Veterans Health Administration's (VA) capacity to purchase services for VA enrollees from community providers, yet little is known regarding the growth of Veterans' primary care use in community settings.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to measure county-level growth in VA community-based primary care (CBPC) penetration following the Choice Act and to assess whether CBPC penetration increased in rural counties with limited access to VA facilities.

DATA AND SAMPLE

A total of 3132 counties from VA administrative data from 2015 to 2018, Area Health Resources Files, and County Health Rankings.

ANALYSIS

We defined the county-level CBPC penetration rate as the proportion of VA-purchased primary care out of all VA-purchased primary care (ie, within and outside VA). We estimated county-level multivariate linear regression models to assess whether rurality and supply of primary care providers and health care facilities were significantly associated with CBPC growth.

RESULTS

Nationally, CBPC penetration rates increased from 2.7% in 2015 to 7.3% in 2018. The rurality of the county was associated with a 2-3 percentage point (pp) increase in CBPC penetration growth (P<0.001). The presence of a VA facility was associated with a 1.7 pp decrease in CBPC penetration growth (P<0.001), while lower primary care provider supply was associated with a 0.6 pp increase in CBPC growth (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

CBPC as a proportion of all VA-purchased primary care was small but increased nearly 3-fold between 2015 and 2018. Greater increases in CBPC penetration were concentrated in rural counties and counties without a VA facility, suggesting that community care may enhance primary care access in rural areas with less VA presence.

Comparing Driving Miles for Department of Veterans Affairs-delivered Versus Department of Veterans Affairs-purchased Cataract Surgery

BACKGROUND

The Veterans Choice Act of 2014 increased the number of Veterans eligible for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)-purchased care delivered in non-VA community care (CC) facilities. Driving >40 miles from home to a VA facility is a key eligibility criterion for CC. It remains unclear whether this policy change improved geographical access by reducing drive distance for Veterans.

OBJECTIVES

Describe the driving distance for Veterans receiving cataract surgery in VA and CC facilities, and if they visited the closest-to-home facility or if they drove to farther facilities.

SUBJECTS

Veterans who had cataract surgery in federal fiscal year 2015.

MEASURES

We calculated driving miles to the Closest VA and CC facilities that performed cataract surgeries, and to the location where Veterans received care.

RESULTS

A total of 61,746 Veterans received 83,875 cataract surgeries. More than 50% of CC surgeries occurred farther than the Closest CC facility providing cataract surgery (median Closest CC facility 8.7 miles vs. Actual CC facility, 19.7 miles). Most (57%) Veterans receiving cataract surgery at a VA facility used the Closest VA facility (median Closest VA facility 28.1 miles vs. Actual VA facility at 31.2 miles). In all, 26.1% of CC procedures occurred in facilities farther away than the Closest VA facility.

CONCLUSIONS

Although many Veterans drove farther than needed to get cataract surgery in CC, this was not true for obtaining care in the VA. Our findings suggest that there may be additional reasons, besides driving distance, that affect whether Veterans choose CC and, if they do, where they seek CC.

Official Information Act investigation of the Ministry of Health's process to assess the Southern District Health Board's readiness to join the National Bowel Screening Programme in 2018

We examined the documentation underlying the decision to permit the Southern District Health Board (SDHB) to join the National Bowel Screening Programme (NBSP) at a time when it was not providing an adequate colonoscopy service for symptomatic patients. A coordinated sequence of relevant Official Information Act 1982 (OIA) requests was lodged with the New Zealand Ministry of Health (MoH), which is responsible for determining the readiness of district health boards (DHBs) to join the NBSP. However, the MoH OIA process was obfuscating, unduly long and responded only after they anticipated imminent intervention by the Office of the Ombudsman. The amount of information provided was massive, partly irrelevant and presented in an inconvenient format. It revealed that the MoH readiness process was incomplete, and permission for the SDHB to join the NBSP was given prematurely without following due process and despite concerns expressed by some MoH staff. Subsequently, the MoH has failed to admit that they made errors in this case or have any weaknesses in their readiness assessment process. The MoH readiness process failed to determine that the SDHB was not ready to join the NBSP in 2018. Concerns have been expressed in the public media that such failures have occurred with the assessment of other DHBs. The process needs to be overhauled or replaced before further permissions are granted to DHBs. Requests for information under the OIA from the MoH, and similar public entities and agencies subject to the OIA, are too easily deferred, derailed or declined. The OIA is in need of revision.

What does abortion law reform mean for primary care practitioners in New Zealand?

New Zealand achieved a major sexual reproductive health and rights milestone when abortion ceased to be a crime. Introduction of the Abortion Legislation Act 2020 has significantly changed the way abortion care can be provided in New Zealand, with the potential to improve access, reduce inequities and transform the abortion experience for those people who choose to end their pregnancy. The primary care sector stands to be a key player in the provision of first-trimester abortion care. However, with issues relating to funding, training and access to medications yet to be resolved, the health sector is not yet ready to provide best-practice abortion care within the new legislative framework.