Rand health quarterly最新文献

Twenty years ago, the United States was divided by heated debates over legalizing marriage for same-sex couples. Those in favor argued that granting same-sex couples access to marriage would strengthen commitment for same-sex couples, extend the financial benefits of marriage to same-sex households, and improve outcomes for children raised by same-sex parents. Those who were opposed argued that granting legal status to marriages between same-sex partners would alter the foundation of marriage and diminish its value for different-sex couples, ultimately harming children by making them less likely to be raised in stable, two-parent families. It has now been 20 years since Massachusetts became the first state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in May 2004. The consequences of extending legal recognition to same-sex couples need no longer be a topic of speculation and debate; researchers have had two decades to study the consequences of legalizing marriage for same-sex couples on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals; their children; and the general public. The broad goal of this study is to document those consequences. The authors pursued this goal in two ways. First, they conducted a comprehensive review of the existing research literature on the effects of legalizing marriage for same-sex couples. Second, they conducted new analyses to evaluate the prediction that rates of marriage, cohabitation, and divorce and attitudes toward marriage would be adversely affected by granting same-sex couples access to legal marriage.

RAND is supporting the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in advancing understanding of U.S. public mindsets and attitudes toward health and well-being. This study describes the design and fielding of the 2023 National Survey of Health Attitudes, the third iteration of this survey, on how people in the United States think about, value, and prioritize health and consider issues of health equity.

The implementation and enforcement of state and local abortion policy can vary significantly between medical clinics and depend on the context and the individual decisionmakers involved. Research conducted prior to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization showed that, when providers are unclear about potentially conflicting or changing local and state policies (formal and informal) or enforcement, many err on the side of caution and become more restrictive in their practices. However, it is unknown whether and to what extent state and local policies and practices adapted in the wake of Dobbs have influenced providers' practices. The authors conducted an initial study of laws and policies post-Dobbs in one state, North Carolina, to better understand the policy landscape and gather perspectives from staff in facilities or organizations that provide or support abortion care. This study served as a unique opportunity to explore laws and policies, as well as implementation experiences, given North Carolina's Senate Bill 20, which instituted a gestational limit of 12 weeks and 6 days, as well as other provisions, including a 72-hour in-person consent requirement. The findings highlight the reported impacts of Senate Bill 20 on facilities, providers, and patients, as well as other local and institutional policies on abortion care access. This work highlights the importance of understanding legislation and its underlying provisions to ensure a complete picture of implementation factors and potential impacts.

Exposure to environmental hazards exacerbates the risks inherent in military service, but many veterans do not experience the health consequences until many years later. The 2022 Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act tasked the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs with streamlining benefits and health care eligibility for certain veterans who have been exposed to military hazards. However, questions and concerns remain about the equitability, scientific robustness, and timeliness of the associated decisionmaking processes. There are opportunities to use structures from existing programs-specifically, the World Trade Center Health Program-as a template to improve engagement with veterans and their families, caregivers, providers, and advocates to ensure that their experiences and needs are heard, understood, and an integral part of the PACT Act's implementation.

Too often, policy discussions focus on employment rates over the quality of the jobs that are available to veterans. Ensuring safe and healthy working conditions for veterans should be a priority of policies and programs to improve employment opportunities for this population. Veterans have already put their lives and health on the line for their country, sometimes with long-term effects that make them vulnerable to additional hazards on the job. Understanding why veterans choose the occupations they do and the risks they are exposed to could lead to policies that improve veteran health and support for all workers.

The U.S. government has affirmed commitments to improving health and well-being for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other sexual and gender minority (LGBTQ+) veterans, who may have distinct needs and challenges when accessing timely and appropriate health care. To date, there are limited data about potential health disparities among LGBTQ+ veterans that examine differences by both sexual identity and gender identity. Understanding the nature and magnitude of disparities among LGBTQ+ veterans is critical for targeted efforts to improve their health and well-being. The authors of this study use nationally representative data from 2015-2021 from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to compare the age-adjusted prevalence of health-related outcomes across multiple domains (health care access and affordability, general health, substance use, and chronic conditions) for sexual and gender minority veterans with that of their heterosexual and cisgender veteran peers. LGBTQ+ veterans showed poorer health-related outcomes in multiple domains than their heterosexual and cisgender peers, including in terms of healthcare affordability, mental health, chronic cardiovascular conditions, and chronic respiratory conditions. The authors also examine associations between state LGBTQ+ policy climates and health-related outcomes among LGBTQ+ veterans. Among LGBTQ+ veterans, living in a state with a more favorable (versus negative) LGBTQ+ policy climate was associated with several health indicators (e.g., having health insurance, lower smoking rates). The authors then discuss implications for ongoing efforts to improve health and well-being for LGBTQ+ veterans, including sustained actions to ensure that all LGBTQ+ veterans are able to access necessary care and use the full scope of benefits for which they are eligible.

Developing strong resiliency and care solutions for airmen and guardians is key to human capital development and force readiness. The True North program is one of the Department of the Air Force's (DAF's) most significant recent investments in promoting the resiliency of its people. Assessing the program's level of success, justifying funding, and informing decisions about the program's future will require a rigorous evaluation. The authors of this study (1) identify desired outcomes for members participating in the program, (2) define appropriate measures of effectiveness that could be used in evaluating the True North program, and (3) make recommendations for ongoing internal evaluation of the program. The True North program encompasses selected installation welcome centers, embedded religious support teams (RSTs), and embedded mental health (EMH) teams. To determine how DAF might evaluate this program and its components, the authors reviewed relevant policies and procedures and literature relevant to the program components and conducted interviews with 17 True North program personnel and 21 group and squadron commanders. They present a program logic model to determine potential evaluation measures.

Prescription drug research and development is, particularly in its most expensive later stages, an increasingly global endeavor undertaken by large, multinational firms. However, the availability of the resulting new drugs in individual countries and the timing of their launch can vary because of regulatory differences, business decisions, and other factors. The now-enacted Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and other policy proposals aim to lower U.S. prices for brand-name drugs that are between three and four times as expensive as in other higher-income countries. Some stakeholders assert that lower U.S. prices will prevent U.S. patients from accessing some drugs sold in other countries or delay the launch of new drugs in the United States. To address these concerns, the author uses 2018 to 2022 data to compare the availability and timing of entry of new prescription drugs between the United States and other high-income countries.