Lessons Learned from Public Health and State Prison Collaborations during COVID-19 Pandemic and Multifacility Tuberculosis Outbreak, Washington, USA

The large COVID-19 outbreaks in prisons in the Washington (USA) State Department of Corrections (WADOC) system during 2020 highlighted the need for a new public health approach to prevent and control COVID-19 transmission in the system's 12 facilities. WADOC and the Washington State Department of Health (WADOH) responded by strengthening partnerships through dedicated corrections-focused public health staff, improving cross-agency outbreak response coordination, implementing and developing corrections-specific public health guidance, and establishing collaborative data systems. The preexisting partnerships and trust between WADOC and WADOH, strengthened during the COVID-19 response, laid the foundation for a collaborative response during late 2021 to the largest tuberculosis outbreak in Washington State in the past 20 years. We describe challenges of a multiagency collaboration during 2 outbreak responses, as well as approaches to address those challenges, and share lessons learned for future communicable disease outbreak responses in correctional settings.

Variation in State-Level Mammography Use, 2012 and 2020

OBJECTIVES

Mammography is a screening tool for early detection of breast cancer. Uptake in screening use in states can be influenced by Medicaid coverage and eligibility policies, public health outreach efforts, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-funded National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. We described state-specific mammography use in 2020 and changes as compared with 2012.

METHODS

We estimated the proportion of women aged ≥40 years who reported receiving a mammogram in the past 2 years, by age group, state, and demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, using 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data. We also compared 2020 state estimates with 2012 estimates.

RESULTS

The proportion of women aged 50-74 years who received a mammogram in the past 2 years was 78.1% (95% CI, 77.4%-78.8%) in 2020. Across measures of socioeconomic status, mammography use was generally lower among women who did not have health insurance (52.0%; 95% CI, 48.3%-55.6%) than among those who did (79.9%; 95% CI, 79.3%-80.6%) and among those who had a usual source of care (49.4%; 95% CI, 46.1%-52.7%) than among those who did not (81.0%; 95% CI, 80.4%-81.7%). Among women aged 50-74 years, mammography use varied across states, from a low of 65.2% (95% CI, 61.4%-69.0%) in Wyoming to a high of 86.1% (95% CI, 83.8%-88.3%) in Massachusetts. Four states had significant increases in mammography use from 2012 to 2020, and 8 states had significant declines.

CONCLUSION

Mammography use varied widely among states. Use of evidence-based interventions tailored to the needs of local populations and communities may help close gaps in the use of mammography.

State Preemption of Consumer Merchandise and Beverage Containers: New Strategy to Preempt Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Policies?

State legislators passed laws preempting, or prohibiting, local governments from regulating beverage containers. Although the primary purpose of these laws may be to ban local environmental regulations addressing single-use plastics, it is unknown the extent they also preempt public health policies aimed at reducing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption. In 2021, using LexisNexis, we assessed state legislation preempting local control over consumer merchandise and containers. We identified 8 laws (and 16 failed bills) with broad language preempting local regulation of the sale, use, or marketing of multiple container types, including beverage containers. Most legislative activity occurred during 2016-2021, with legislative intent to avoid a "patchwork" of local laws, avoid burdening retailers, and have a "refreshing drink." Local policy control was characterized as "personal choice." Broad preemption language may stifle local policy making aimed at reducing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and preempt public health policies such as restricting portion size, in-store promotion and display, and labeling measures.

What Does the State Innovation Model Experiment Tell Us About States' Capacity to Implement Complex Health Reforms?

Policy Points To make progress implementing payment and delivery system reforms, state governments need to make genuine stakeholder engagement routine business, develop reforms that build on past successes, and ensure health reform is a top priority for bureaucrats and political leaders. To support state-led reform initiatives, the federal government needs to provide financial support directly to state governments; build bureaucratic capability in supporting state officials with policy design and implementation; develop more flexible, outcome-focused funding programs; reform its own programs, particularly Medicare; and commit to a long-term strategy for progressing payment and delivery system reforms.

CONTEXT

For decades, Americans have debated whether the states need federal government support to reform health care. The Affordable Care Act has allowed the federal government to trial innovative ways of accelerating state-led reform initiatives through the State Innovation Model (SIM), which was run by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Innovation Center between 2013 and 2019. This study assesses states' progress implementing health reforms under SIM and examines how well the federal government supported them.

METHODS

Detailed case studies were conducted in six states: Arkansas, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, Tennessee, and Washington. Data was collected from SIM evaluation and annual reports and through semistructured interviews with 39 expert informants, mostly state or federal officials involved in SIM. Preliminary findings were tested and refined through an online forum with health policy experts, facilitated by the Milbank Memorial Fund.

FINDINGS

States that made the most progress implementing reforms had a strong track record and managed to sustain stakeholder, bureaucratic, and political support for their reform agenda. There was a clear correlation between past reform success and success under SIM, which raises questions about the value of federal government support beyond providing funding. State officials said the federal government could better support states, particularly those with less reform experience, by providing tailored advice that helped state officials overcome problems designing and implementing reforms. State officials also said the federal government could better support them by reforming their own programs, particularly Medicare, and committing to a long-term strategy for health system reform.

CONCLUSIONS

States can make some progress reforming health care on their own, but real progress requires long-term cooperation between state and federal governments. Federal initiatives like SIM that foster cooperation between governments should be continued but refined so they provide better support to states.

Pursuing Value-Based Prices for Drugs: A Comprehensive Comparison of State Prescription Drug-Pricing Boards

Policy Points In the absence of federal action on rising prescription drug costs, we reviewed the details of five states that have enacted prescription drug-pricing boards seeking to lower drug prices based on products' value. Within these states, six such boards are currently authorized; they have similarities but vary in terms of structure, authority, scope, and leverage. As of June 2021, only one of the boards in our sample has conducted pricing reviews; legislators in other states can learn from the successes and challenges of existing boards. Prescription drug-pricing boards represent a novel and promising way to curb state spending and pay for value in prescription drugs but face legal and political barriers in implementation.

CONTEXT

Rising prescription drug costs are consuming a growing proportion of state and private budgets. In response, lawmakers have experimented with a variety of policies to contain spending and achieve value in prescription drugs. As part of this series of reforms, some state legislatures have recently authorized prescription drug-pricing boards to address the high prices of brand-name prescription drugs and assess the value of those drugs.

METHODS

We identified state prescription drug-pricing boards in the United States, defined as any agency authorized by a state legislature to review specific drugs and pursue value-based drug prices. To describe the characteristics of the boards, we obtained public records of authorizing legislation, guidance documents, and board meeting minutes. We compared the boards' powers and responsibilities and analyzed completed pricing reviews.

FINDINGS

Six state drug-pricing boards in five states met our definition; their design varied substantially. Two of the boards (New York Medicaid and Massachusetts) have authority over drug rebates paid by state Medicaid programs, one (New York Drug Accountability Board) has jurisdiction over state-regulated commercial insurance, and another three (Maine, Maryland, and New Hampshire) oversee non-Medicaid, state-funded insurance. Three boards are authorized to require manufacturers to confidentially submit information related to the pricing and clinical effectiveness of reviewed drugs to inform value determinations. Only one board (New York Medicaid) had completed pricing reviews as of June 3, 2021.

CONCLUSIONS

Boards' structure, scope, and statutory leverages to compel manufacturers to negotiate lower net costs are key factors that influence whether and to what extent boards can achieve cost savings for states. Though legal constraints may limit the effective reach of prescription drug-pricing boards, these agencies can enable states to address rising prescription drug costs, in part by virtue of their very existence. To overcome practical limitations, states seeking to implement similar policies can build on the experiences and designs of current boards.

Child dental neglect laws: Specifications and repercussions for dentists in 51 jurisdictions

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to perform an interjurisdictional comparison of statutes and regulations (collectively laws) pertaining to the reporting of child dental neglect by dentists. Case law interpretation or enforcement of the laws was not included in this study.

METHODS

Child neglect laws were identified in 51 jurisdictions (50 states and the District of Columbia) by performing a Westlaw legal database search, conducting a systematic internet search, and engaging in direct communication with each jurisdiction. Laws on 2 domains relative to dentists were evaluated: protection from civil and criminal liability when reporting child neglect and sanctions for failing to report child neglect.

RESULTS

All jurisdictions have child neglect laws; however, only 8 specify failing to seek dental treatment as child neglect and none adopt the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry's definition. Although all jurisdictions protect dental professionals who report child dental neglect in good faith, sanctions for failing to report neglect include imprisonment from 6 months (49%) through 5 years (2%) and fines from $1,000 (61%) through $10,000 (6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the laws vary across jurisdictions, dentists are protected when reporting child dental neglect but can be sanctioned for failing to report it.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Dentists may not be aware of the current sanctions or interjurisdictional differences. Becoming informed about these laws may incentivize dentists to establish reporting protocols for child dental neglect.

Challenges and lessons learned in promoting adoption of standardized local public health service delivery data through the application of the Public Health Activities and Services Tracking model

Population-level prevention activities are often publicly invisible and excluded in planning and policymaking. This creates an incomplete picture of prevention service-related inputs, particularly at the local level. We describe the process and lessons learned by the Public Health Activities and Services Tracking team in promoting adoption of standardized service delivery measures developed to assess public health inputs and guide system transformations. The 3 factors depicted in our Public Health Activities and Services Tracking model-data need and use, data access, and standardized measures-must be realized to promote collection of standard public health system data. Bureaucratic, resource, system, and policy challenges hampered our efforts toward adoption of the standardized measures we promoted. Substantial investments of time, resources, and coordination appear necessary for systems to adopt changes needed for collecting comparable service delivery data. Lessons from our process of promoting adoption of standardized measures provide recommendations to support future efforts to measure public health system contributions to the public's health.

States Encouraging Value-Based Payment: Lessons From CMS's State Innovation Models Initiative

Policy Points Six states received $250 million under the federal State Innovation Models (SIM) Initiative Round 1 to increase the proportion of care delivered under value-based payment (VBP) models aligned across multiple payers. Multipayer alignment around a common VBP model occurred within the context of state regulatory and purchasing policies and in states with few commercial payers, not through engaging many stakeholders to act voluntarily. States that made targeted infrastructure investments in performance data and electronic hospital event notifications, and offered grants and technical assistance to providers, produced delivery system changes to enhance care coordination even where VBP models were not multipayer.

CONTEXT

In 2013, six states (Arkansas, Massachusetts, Maine, Minnesota, Oregon, and Vermont) received $250 million in Round 1 State Innovation Models (SIM) awards to test how regulatory, policy, purchasing, and other levers available to state governments could transform their health care system by implementing value-based payment (VBP) models that shift away from fee-for-service toward payment based on quality and cost.

METHODS

We gathered and analyzed qualitative data on states' implementation of their SIM Initiatives between 2014 and 2018, including interviews with state officials and other stakeholders; consumer and provider focus groups; and review of relevant state-produced documents.

FINDINGS

State policymakers leveraged existing state law, new policy development, and federal SIM Initiative funds to implement new VBP models in Medicaid. States' investments promoted electronic health information going from hospitals to primary care providers and collaboration across care team members within practices to enhance care coordination. Multipayer alignment occurred where there were few commercial insurers in a state, or where a state law or state contracting compelled commercial insurer participation. Challenges to health system change included commercial payer reluctance to coordinate on VBP models, cost and policy barriers to establishing bidirectional data exchange among all providers, preexisting quality measurement requirements across payers that impede total alignment of measures, providers' perception of their limited ability to influence patients' behavior that puts them at financial risk, and consumer concerns with changes in care delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

The SIM Initiative's test of the power of state governments to shape health care policy demonstrated that strong state regulatory and purchasing policy levers make a difference in multipayer alignment around VBP models. In contrast, targeted financial investments in health information technology, data analytics, technical assistance, and workforce development are more effective than policy alone in encouraging care delivery change beyond that which VBP model participation might manifest.

To Do No Harm: Humanitarian Aid in Conflict Demands Political Engagement

Humanitarian aid in settings of conflict has always been fraught with challenges. In the absence of political engagement, however, manipulation by state authorities, however, have the potential to pervert aid intervention to inflict harm. South Sudan exemplifies how states may abuse the humanitarian response to retreat from public responsibility, divert funds to further violence and conflict and dictate the distribution of aid. Recent trends toward nationalist policies in the West that favor disengagement and limited military strikes have the very effect of allowing this abuse to transform humanitarian aid into a tool for harm. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2018;12:567-568).

Should states and local governments regulate dietary supplements?

Federal regulation of dietary supplements in the United States is governed by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. The law has been criticized as weak and ineffective. Alarming research has emerged demonstrating that supplements may be mislabelled, contaminated, adulterated with dangerous or unknown compounds, or sold at toxic doses. As a result, the health community has raised concerns about the safety and quality of dietary supplements. Increased federal oversight is an important avenue for improving supplement safety; however, states and local governments may also pursue strategies to strengthen the overall regulatory control of dietary supplements. States and local governments have substantial experience in regulating other products that pose a risk to public health, such as tobacco. Additionally, much has been learned about the tactics the tobacco industry has employed to protect its interests. Lessons learned may be applied to new regulatory efforts aimed at improving the safety of dietary supplements at the state and local levels. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

An Assessment of State-Led Reform of Long-Term Services and Supports

Health care in the United States is fragmented, inefficient, and rife with quality concerns. These shortcomings have particularly serious implications for adults with disabilities and functionally impaired older adults in need of long-term services and supports (LTSS). Three strategies have been commonly pursued by state governments to improve LTSS: expanding noninstitutional care, integrating payment and care delivery, and realigning incentives through market-based reforms. These strategies were analyzed using an evaluation framework consisting of the following dimensions: ease of access; choice of setting/provider; quality of care/life; support for family caregivers; effective transitions among multiple providers and across settings; reductions in racial/ethnic disparities; cost-effectiveness; political feasibility; and implementability. Although the analysis highlights potential benefits and drawbacks associated with each strategy, the limited breadth of the evidentiary base precludes an assessment of impact across all nine dimensions. More importantly, the analysis exposes the interdependent, complex system of care within which LTSS is situated, suggesting that policy makers will require a holistic and long-term perspective to achieve needed changes. Addressing the nation's LTSS needs will require a multipronged strategy incorporating a range of health and social services to meet the complex care needs of a diverse population in a variety of settings.

Implementing and sustaining evidence-based practice in juvenile justice: a case study of a rural state

US juvenile justice is at the forefront of experimentation with the evidence-based paradigm, whereby the best available research is utilized to help inform more rational and effective practice. Increasingly, state governments are playing a major role in this endeavor. Maine is one of these states and is the focus of this article. Using a case-study design, we set out to develop a fuller understanding of the events and processes that have contributed to the development, implementation, and sustainment of evidence-based practice in juvenile justice in the state. Four major themes emerged. First, Maine has benefited from strong and lasting leadership within its corrections department. These leaders paved the way for the implementation and sustainment of programs, including finding innovative ways to use existing resources. Second, the adoption of the Risk-Need-Responsivity model was important in laying the groundwork for the use of evidence-based programming. Third, collaborations within and among state agencies and public and private groups were essential. Finally, buy-in and support from multiple stakeholders was and continues to be essential to Maine's work. Ongoing problems remain with respect to ensuring agencies prioritize fidelity to the model and locating increasingly scarce funding. Implications for other states are discussed.

Filling service gaps: Providing intensive treatment services for offenders

Consistent with the few studies that have previously examined treatment prevalence and access in the adult and juvenile justice systems, the recent National Criminal Justice Treatment Practices (NCJTP) survey indicated that there is a particular need to expand intensive treatment modalities for offenders in both institutional and community corrections settings. Applying multilevel modeling techniques to NCJTP survey data, this study explores conditions and factors that may underlie the wide variation among states in the provision of intensive treatment for offenders. Results indicate that states' overall rates of substance abuse and dependence, funding resources, and the state governor's political party affiliation were significantly associated with intensive treatment provision. Numerous factors that have been implicated in recent studies of evidence-based practice adoption, including state agency executives' views regarding rehabilitation, agency culture and climate, and other state-level measures (e.g., household income, crime rates, expenditures on treatment for the general population) were not associated with treatment provision. Future research should examine further variations in offenders' service needs, the role of legislators' political affiliations, and how other factors may interact with administrator characteristics in the adoption and expansion of intensive treatment services for offenders.