Policy brief (UCLA Center for Health Policy Research)最新文献

In 2004, voters in California approved Proposition 63 for passage of the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA). From thattime until 2014, over $13 billion in the state's tax revenue was allocated for public mental health services. There is very little information available to answer critical questions such as these: How much of this amount was spent in the interests of older adult mental health? What benefits were gained from services delivered to older adults? This policy brief promotes recommendations for specific age-relevant indicator utilization and for an expanded system of uniform and transparent data for all types of MHSA-funded programs. These two policy directions are necessary in order to document the older adult mental health care services provided and to track outcomes at the state level for MHSA programs. A third recommendation centers on assuring that the mental health workforce is prepared to utilize and report age-relevant data indicators.

This policy brief summarizes findings from the first study to evaluate how California's public mental health delivery system has served older adults (60 years of age and over) since the passage of the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) in 2004. Study findings indicate that there are unmet needs among older adults with mental illness in the public mental health delivery system. There are deficits in the involvement of older adults in the required MHSA planning processes and in outreach and service delivery, workforce development, and outcomes measurement and reporting. There is also evidence of promising programs and strategies that counties have advanced to address these deficits. Recommendations for improving mental health services for older adults include designating a distinct administrative and leadership structure for older adult services in each county; enhancing older adult outreach and documentation of unmet need; promoting standardized geriatric training of providers; instituting standardized data-reporting requirements; and increasing service integration efforts, especially between medical, behavioral health, aging, and substance use disorder services.

This report provides the first look at demographics, health, and health care access among transgender adults in California who participated in the 2015-2016 California Health Interview Survey (CHIS). In California, about 92,000 (0.35 percent) adults ages 18 to 70 are transgender. Transgender adults are similar to cisgender1 adults in many ways but experience disparities in mental health, disability status, and health care access. Compared to cisgender adults, transgender adults are more than three times more likely to have ever thought about suicide, nearly six times more likely to have ever attempted suicide, nearly four times more likely to have experienced serious psychological distress, and more than three times more likely to have emotions that interfere withtheir relationships, social life, ability to do chores, and work performance. In regard to health care access, transgender adults are nearly three times more likely than cisgender adults to delay getting medicine prescribed to them by a doctor or to not get the medicine at all. There are no statistically significant differences between transgender and cisgender adults in some demographic characteristics, such as education and U.S. citizenship, and in reports of various physical health conditions, such as diabetes and asthma. However, transgender adults appear more likely to be living with HIV. These and other findings call for future research to explain existing disparities and similarities, as well as for the creation of structural and clinical interventions that will improve healthcare access and mental and physical health outcomes for the transgender population.

Los Angeles County has the state’s lowest rate of consumer enrollment in Cal MediConnect, a program that is responsible for the delivery and coordination of medical, behavioral health, and long-term services and support benefits for individuals who are dually eligible for Medicare and Medi-Cal. This policy brief examines the factors that influence consumer decisions and may contribute to low enrollment rates. Influential factors include consumer knowledge of health care options, perception of choice, and disruption of existing care. Differences in decision making by age, complexity of health care needs, race/ethnicity, immigration status, and primary language are also noted. Policy recommendations include engaging consumers in the planning and dissemination of information about their health care options, optimizing consumer choice and implementing the least disruptive pathway to enrollment, and recognizing and responding to the great diversity of dual-eligible consumers in Los Angeles County.

Parks after Dark is a Los Angeles County (County) program that began in 2010 as the primary prevention strategy of the County's Gang Violence Reduction Initiative. It has since evolved into a key County strategy to promote health, safety, equity, and community well-being. Led by the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), PAD is a collaboration of multiple County departments as well as community agencies. PAD was designed to be implemented in communities with higher rates of violence, economic hardship, and obesity. On average, PAD communities have greater levels of need across these three areas than Los Angeles County as a whole. PAD parks stay open late on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday evenings in the summer months to offer a variety of free activities for people of all ages. PAD provides recreational activities (e.g., sports clinics, exercise classes, and walking clubs), entertainment (concerts, movies, and talent shows), arts and educational programs (arts and crafts, computer classes, and cultural programs), teen clubs and activities, and health and social service resource fairs. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) Deputy Sheriffs patrol the parks to ensure safety during PAD and participate in activities with community members. The PAD program began in three parks in 2010. In 2012, it expanded to six parks, and in 2015 to nine parks. In 2016, the program was being implemented in 21 parks throughout Los Angeles County.

Federally Qualified Health Centers--commonly referred to as Community Health Centers (CHCs)--serve as critical safety net providers for those who are uninsured or who may become uninsured. This policy brief reports the findings from the Remaining Uninsured Access to Community Health Centers (REACH) research project, which sought to identify the impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on the ability of CHCs to serve the remaining uninsured. We examined strategies undertaken by CHCs in four states to reinforce the local safety net through partnerships, improvements to the local health system, and advocacy. With the uncertainties about whether Medicaid expansion will be continued or will be handed over to the states with limited oversight, partnerships both among CHCs and between CHCs and others in the health care system and beyond may become even more important.

California has 12 county-owned and operated hospital systems and 5 University of California hospitals designated as public hospitals. These organizations deliver the majority of inpatient care and a significant amount of outpatient care to Medicaid patients in the state. In 2010, California was the first state in the nation to implement a five-year Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment (DSRIP) program under the Section §1115 Medicaid "Bridge to Reform" waiver to improve the capacity of these hospitals to deliver high quality and more efficient care. The California DSRIP was the first program in a continuing national initiative to reform the Medicaid delivery system while remaining budget neutral. An extensive evaluation revealed major advances in infrastructure development, delivery of health care, and patient outcomes during the program. The results highlight the importance of joint federal and state investments in bolstering the capacity of safety net providers to deliver high-quality care, and they emphasize the need for continued investment in the safety net. The California DSRIP was followed by a program called Public Hospital Redesign and Incentives in Medi-Cal (PRIME), which incentivizes improvements in expanded and new areas of care not addressed by DSRIP

Using data from the California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) for the years 2011-2014, this report presents findings on families with children ages 0-5 years. It breaks down differences between urban, suburban, and rural families, and it highlights the characteristics of families who speak a language other than English in the home. As more than half of families with young children in California speak a language other than English in the home, the characteristics of dual language households are highlighted. In 1998, California passed the California Children and Families Act to improve development for children from the prenatal stage to five years of age. One goal of this ongoing commitment is to expand our understanding of the social and physical environments that can impact a child’s well-being and school readiness.

Changing the Medicaid program is a top priority for the Republican party. Common themes from GOP proposals include converting Medicaid from a jointly financed entitlement benefit to a form of capped federal financing. While proponents of this reform argue that it would provide greater flexibility and a more predictable budget for state governments, serious consequences would likely result for Medicaid enrollees and state governments. Under all three scenarios promoted by Republicans--block grants, capped allotments, and per capita caps—most states would face increased costs. For all three scenarios, the capped nature of the funding guarantees that the real value of funds would decrease in future years relative to what would be expected from growth under the current program. Although the federal government would undoubtedly realize savings from all three scenarios, the impact might lead states to reduce benefits and services, create waiting lists, impose cost-sharing on a traditionally low-income enrollee population, or impose other obstacles to coverage. Nationally, as many as 20.5 million Americans stand to lose coverage under the proposed Medicaid changes. In California, up to 6 million people could lose coverage if changes to the Medicaid program were coupled with the repeal of coverage for the expansion population.

Although the American Health Care Act (AHCA) was recently defeated, the policies in the bill represented a mix of ideas long favored by conservatives. If enacted, this repeal-and-replace bill would have had devastating consequences for most of the5 million Californians currently receiving direct benefits from the Affordable Care Act (ACA), including more than 1 million who receive subsidies through Covered California and almost 4 million who have enrolled in the Medi-Cal expansion. Although the bill failed to garner enough votes for passage, it is likely that efforts to chip away at the ACA will continue and that some of the ideas contained within the AHCA will be revisited. This policy brief summarizes some of the most significant reversals that wouldhave occurred under the Republican plan in the individual and small group insurance markets.