Milbank Quarterly最新文献

Policy Points The population health research field should develop a synthesized approach to evaluate evidence for an intervention's potential impact on equity. When empirical evidence is lacking, theory and frameworks should guide the equity assessments in four areas: 1) understanding historical context, meaning root causes of disparities and inequity; 2) understanding intervention design and intended beneficiaries; 3) understanding differential impact and intersectionality; and 4) understanding community context before implementing or scaling interventions. The synthesized approach of equity assessment better informs practitioners and policymakers in evidence-based decision making to advance equity.

Policy Points Policymakers should consider both material (e.g., cost) and attitudinal (e.g., skepticism) barriers to mental health treatment access. Public support for government action on mental health is high but varies based on experience-based and hypothetical beliefs about barriers to treatment. Appeals to personal experience and perspective-taking may be successful in building support for government action on mental health.

Context: Mental health problems represent a major public health issue for the United States, and access to mental health treatment is both inadequate and unevenly distributed. There is a strong justification for government action on mental health treatment, but it is unclear whether there is a political constituency for such action. Existing work suggests that stigma and othering of people with mental illnesses contributes to reduced support for intervention. I expand on the existing literature by focusing on mental health as an issue that may apply to Americans' own lives rather than only to a stigmatized outgroup.

Methods: Using original questions on a nationally representative 2023 survey of 1,000 American adults, I measured agreement with statements about barriers to mental health treatment access that respondents have experienced or, if they have not sought treatment, their hypothetical assessment of these barriers. I also measured their support for statements in favor of change to address mental health. I analyzed the demographic and political correlates of agreement with the barrier statements and used regressions to examine their possible causal effect on support for change.

Findings: Agreement with statements about access barriers follows expected patterns in some cases (e.g., socioeconomic status) but not in others (e.g., race/ethnicity). I also documented a notable partisan and ideological divide in these experiences and beliefs. I found that Americans who agreed that material factors are a barrier to access were more supportive of action on mental health, whereas those who agreed with statements suggesting discomfort or skepticism were less supportive.

Conclusions: These findings suggest that personal experience and perspective-taking should be integrated into the study of public opinion on mental health, complementing existing work on stigma and othering. Appeals to experience and perspective-taking may be a successful strategy for building public support for action on mental health.

Policy Points Science communication and health policy language often fail to adequately define and contextualize systemic barriers-like structural racism and wealth inequity-that contribute to disparities in health outcomes. Health policy practitioners should understand best practices for communicating research and policy findings to various audiences and understand how to disseminate messages that are culturally and linguistically responsive to different community needs. As no perfect term exists, adopting health equity language principles can help health policy practitioners avoid dehumanizing and exclusionary language as well as ill-suited terminology that perpetuates racist systems and leads to inequities in population health.

Context: Language specificity in research, advocacy, and writing is an important tool to ensure more equitable health policies. All health policy practitioners working at the intersection of health care, health policy, and health equity have a role in upholding ethical standards that promote the use of humanizing, inclusive, and antisupremacist language.

Methods: We conducted an environmental scan and synthesized themes across commonly used and publicly available health equity language guides to provide specific guidance to health policy practitioners to inform their policy research, analysis, writing, and dissemination.

Findings: We identify and describe six guiding principles to dismantle systems that work against the goals of health equity through policy-focused research, writing, and communications. These principles include avoiding blaming language, contextualizing health inequities, acknowledging that systems are not passive, understanding that one-size-fits-all terminology does not exist, seeking input from community members, and paying attention to omissions.

Conclusions: Applying these principles will better equip health policy practitioners to develop or inform equitable policies and meaningfully engage in dialogue with community members to advance equitable health policy.

Policy Points The World Health Organization (WHO) Model Lists of Essential Medicines (EML) aims to select clinically beneficial and cost-effective medicines that ought to be prioritized by health systems based on the priority needs of their populations. However, the rapid evolution within the pharmaceutical sector toward complex, high-priced medicines has challenged WHO decision making in recent years, as evidenced by earlier literature demonstrating inconsistencies in the application of decision criteria and recommendations. Proposed solutions to these challenges focus on technical aspects of the program, such as refining the quality of evidence in applications, improving the connection with guidelines, and using evidence assessment frameworks. Yet, earlier literature has not examined the political challenges that the WHO-as a global health organization-has encountered during the past 20 years. This article examines these challenges by reviewing documents and interviewing stakeholders involved with the WHO EML decision making. A diverse range of stakeholders shape the process to select medicines, each with different interests (e.g., protecting commercial interests versus advocating for access) and ideas (the role of the WHO EML in indirectly resulting in lower prices versus safeguarding low- and middle-income countries from catastrophic expenditure). A lack of data and financial and human resources inhibits evaluation of the impact of the EML and exacerbates the influence of external actors, including which products are reviewed and how they are recommended. As a result, a degree of inconsistency has emerged, both in recommendations and in the concept of essential medicines.

Context: The World Health Organization (WHO) Model Lists of Essential Medicines (EML) aims to help countries select medicines based on the priority needs of their populations. However, rapid evolution within the pharmaceutical sector toward complex, high-priced medicines has challenged WHO decision making, leading to inconsistent decisions. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how political factors impact the WHO EML.

Methods: Document review and semistructured interviews of diverse stakeholder groups with direct experience with the WHO EML, either as stakeholders involved with WHO EML processes (e.g., selection of medicines, observers) or external applications (n = 29). Donabedian's structure-process-outcome framework was combined with the Three I's framework (ideas, interests, and institutions) to understand how political factors shape the WHO EML.

Findings: The concept of essential medicines evolved from an original focus on generic medicines in resource-constrained countries to include complex, high-priced therapeutics also relevant to high-income nations. The WHO has never explicitly addressed whom its decisions are for. Some believe the Model Lists have a "symbolic" price-lowering mechani

Policy Points Efforts to address a perceived decline of comprehensiveness in primary care are hampered by the absence of a clear and common understanding of what comprehensiveness means. This scoping review mapped two domains of comprehensiveness (breadth of care and approach to care) as well as a set of factors that enable comprehensive practice. The resulting conceptual map supports greater clarity for future use of the term comprehensiveness, facilitating more precisely targeted research, practice, and policy efforts to improve primary care systems.

Context: Associated with system efficiency and patient-perceived quality, comprehensiveness is widely recognized as foundational to high-quality primary care. However, there is concern that comprehensiveness is declining and that primary care physicians are providing a narrower range of services. Efforts to address this perceived decline are hampered by the many different and sometimes vague definitions of comprehensiveness in current use. This scoping review explored how comprehensiveness in primary care is conceptualized and defined in order to map its attributes in support of being able to more clearly and precisely define this key concept in research, practice, and policy.

Methods: We conducted a scoping review, following the methods of Arksey and O'Malley and Levac and colleagues. The search included terms for two key concepts: primary care and comprehensiveness. Developed in Ovid Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), the search was adapted for Cumulated Index in Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Embase, as well as for gray literature. After a multistep review, included sources underwent detailed data extraction.

Findings: A total of 360 sources were extracted; 57% were empirical studies and 65% were published between 2010 and 2022. Across these sources, we identified nine attributes of comprehensiveness in primary care. We mapped these attributes into two conceptual domains: breadth of care (services, settings, health needs and conditions, patients served, and availability) and approach to care (one-stop shop, whole-person care, referrals and coordination, and longitudinal care). Additionally, we identified three enablers of comprehensiveness, namely structures and resources, teams, and competency.

Conclusions: The conceptual map of comprehensiveness in primary care offers a valuable tool that supports clarity for future use of the term comprehensiveness. The domains and attributes we identified can be used to develop definitions and measures that are appropriate to research, practice, and policy contexts, enabling more precise efforts to improve primary care systems.

Policy Points Cell and gene therapies (CGTs) offer treatment for rare and oftentimes deadly disease, but their prices are high, and payers may seek to limit spending. Total annual costs of covering all existing and expected CGTs for the entire US population 2023-2035 to amount to less than $20 per person and concentrate in commercial and state Medicaid plans. Reinsurance fees add to expected costs. Policies that improve coverage and affordability are needed to assure patient access to CGTs.

Context: Cell and gene therapies (CGTs) offer treatment to rare and oftentimes deadly diseases. Because of their high price and uncertain clinical outcomes, US insurers commonly restrain patient access to CGTs, and these barriers may create or perpetuate existing disparities. A reconsideration of existing insurance policies to improve access and reduce disparities is currently underway. One method insurers use to support access and protect them from large, unexpected claims is the purchase of reinsurance. In exchange for an upfront per-member-per-month (PMPM) premium, the reinsurer pays the claim and rebates the insurer at the end of the contract period if there are funds leftover. However, existing reinsurance plans may not cover CGTs or charge exorbitant fees for coverage.

Methods: We simulate the incremental annual per-person reinsurer costs to cover CGTs existing or expected between 2023 and 2035 for the US population and by payer type based on previously published estimates of expected US spending on CGTs, assumed US population of 330 persons, and current CGT reinsurance fees. We illustrate our methods by estimating the incremental annual per-person costs overall payers and to state Medicaid plans of sickle cell disease-targeted CGTs.

Findings: We estimate annual incremental spending on CGTs 2023-2035 to amount to $20.4 billion, or $15.69 per person. Total annual estimated spending is expected to concentrate among commercial plans. Sickle cell-targeted CGTs add a maximum of $0.78 PMPM in costs to all payers and will concentrate within state Medicaid programs. Reinsurance fees add to expected costs.

Conclusions: Annual per-person costs to provide access to CGTs are expected to concentrate in commercial and state Medicaid plans. Policies that improve CGT coverage and affordability are needed.

Policy Points This study examines exposure to out-of-pocket (OOP) costs related to childbirth and postpartum care for those with a Medicaid-insured birth compared with those with a commercially insured birth and subsequent financial outcomes at 12 months postpartum. We find that Medicaid is highly protective against health care costs for childbirth and postpartum care relative to commercial insurance, particularly for birthing people with low income. We find persistent medical debt and worry at 12 months postpartum for Medicaid recipients who reported OOP childbirth expenses.

Context: Out-of-pocket (OOP) costs related to childbirth and postpartum care may cause financial hardship, depending on type of insurance and income.

Methods: We estimated OOP spending on childbirth and postpartum care and financial strain 1 year after birth, comparing Medicaid-insured births with commercially insured births. The Postpartum Assessment of Health Survey followed up with respondents to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System after a 2020 birth in six states and New York City. The survey included questions on health care costs and financial well-being. Our analytic sample consisted of 4,453 postpartum people, 1,544 with a Medicaid-insured birth and 2,909 with a commercially insured birth.

Findings: We observe significant financial hardship from childbirth that persists into the postpartum year, with significant differences by insurance and income. We find Medicaid is highly financially protective relative to commercial insurance; 81.4% of Medicaid-insured births were free to the patient, compared with 15.7% of commercially insured births (p < 0.001). Six of ten commercially insured births (59%) cost over $1,000 OOP. Among respondents reporting OOP costs for childbirth, we found that Medicaid enrollees are more likely to have borrowed money from friends or family to pay for childbirth (8% vs. 1%, p < 0.001) and one in five had not made any payments 1 year postpartum (26% vs. 5% of commercially insured births, p < 0.001). Among the commercially insured, those with incomes under 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL) fared worse financially than those above 200% FPL on a number of indicators, including debt in collection (33% vs. 13%, p < 0.001) and financial worry (55% vs. 34%, p < 0.001).

Conclusions: The cost of childbirth and postpartum health care results in significant and persistent financial hardship, particularly for families with lower income with commercial insurance. Medicaid offers greater protection for families with low income by offering reduced cost sharing for childbirth and postpartum health care, but even minimal cost sharing in Medicaid causes financial strain.

Policy Points A large population of incarcerated people may be eligible for prerelease and transition services under the new Medicaid Reentry Section 1115 Demonstration Opportunity. We estimated the largest relative population increases in Medicaid coverage from the opportunity may be expected in smaller and more rural states. We found that mental illness, hepatitis C, and chronic kidney disease prevalence rates were sufficiently high among incarcerated populations to likely skew overall Medicaid population prevalence of these diseases when prerelease and transition services are expanded, implying the need for planning of additional data exchange and service delivery infrastructure by state Medicaid plans.

Context: As states expand prerelease and transition services for incarcerated individuals under the Medicaid Reentry Section 1115 Demonstration Opportunity, we sought to systematically inform Medicaid state and plan administrators regarding the population size and burden of disease data available on incarcerated populations in both jails and prisons in the United States.

Methods: We analyzed data on eligibility criteria for new Medicaid prerelease and transition services based on incarceration length and health conditions across states. We estimated the potentially eligible populations in prisons and jails, considering various incarceration lengths and health status requirements. We also compared disease prevalence in the incarcerated population with that of the existing civilian Medicaid population.

Findings: We found that rural and smaller states would experience a disproportionately large proportion of their Medicaid populations to be eligible for prerelease and transition services if new Medicaid eligibility rules were broadly applied. Self-reported psychological distress was notably higher among incarcerated individuals compared with those currently on Medicaid. The prevalence rates of previously diagnosed chronic hepatitis C and kidney disease were also much higher in the incarcerated population than the existing civilian Medicaid population.

Conclusions: We estimated large volumes of potentially Medicaid-eligible entrants as coverage policy changes take effect over the coming years, particularly impacting smaller and more rural states. Our findings reveal very high disease prevalence rates among the incarcerated population subject to new Medicaid coverage, including specific chronic, infectious, and behavioral health conditions that state Medicaid programs, health plans, and providers may benefit from advanced planning to address.

Policy Points The reinstitution of pre-COVID-19 pandemic licensure regulations has impeded interstate telehealth. This has disproportionately impacted patients who live near a state border; geographically mobile patients, such as college students; and patients with rare diseases who may need care from a specialist outside their state. Several promising and feasible reforms are available, at both state and federal levels, to facilitate interstate telehealth. For example, states can offer exemptions to licensure requirements for certain types of telehealth such as follow-up care or create licensure registries that impose little reduced paperwork and fees on physicians. On the federal level, congressional interventions that mimic the Department of Veterans Affairs Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks (VA MISSION) Act of 2018 can waive provider licensing and geographic restrictions to telehealth within certain federal programs such as Medicare. Any discussion of medical licensure reform, however, must also consider the current political climate, one in which states are taking divergent stances on sensitive topics such as reproductive care, gender-affirming care, and substance use treatments.