超越爱好游说:雇主的责任和机会,以改善网络获得生殖保健的员工

Q2 Medicine Contraception: X Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.conx.2022.100078
Lee A. Hasselbacher , Erin Wingo , Alexis Cacioppo , Ashley McHugh , Debra Stulberg , Lori Freedman
{"title":"超越爱好游说:雇主的责任和机会,以改善网络获得生殖保健的员工","authors":"Lee A. Hasselbacher ,&nbsp;Erin Wingo ,&nbsp;Alexis Cacioppo ,&nbsp;Ashley McHugh ,&nbsp;Debra Stulberg ,&nbsp;Lori Freedman","doi":"10.1016/j.conx.2022.100078","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The majority of United States (US) women age 15–49 have employer-sponsored health insurance, but these insurance plans fall short if employees cannot find providers who meet reproductive health needs. Employers could and should do more to facilitate and advocate for their employees through the insurance plans they sponsor. We conducted interviews with 14 key informants to understand how large United States employers see their role in health insurance benefits, especially when it comes to reproductive health care access and restrictions in religious health systems. Our findings suggest that large employers wish to be responsive to their employees’ health insurance priorities and have leverage to improve access to reproductive health services, but they do not take sufficient action toward this end. In particular, we argue that large employers could pressure insurance carriers to address network gaps in care resulting from religious restrictions and require insurers to treat out-of-network providers like in-network providers when reproductive care is restricted.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":10655,"journal":{"name":"Contraception: X","volume":"4 ","pages":"Article 100078"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590151622000077/pdfft?md5=18c0a7ac01de30f5a3b15d6ad66b918a&pid=1-s2.0-S2590151622000077-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beyond Hobby Lobby: Employer's responsibilities and opportunities to improve network access to reproductive healthcare for employees\",\"authors\":\"Lee A. Hasselbacher ,&nbsp;Erin Wingo ,&nbsp;Alexis Cacioppo ,&nbsp;Ashley McHugh ,&nbsp;Debra Stulberg ,&nbsp;Lori Freedman\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.conx.2022.100078\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The majority of United States (US) women age 15–49 have employer-sponsored health insurance, but these insurance plans fall short if employees cannot find providers who meet reproductive health needs. Employers could and should do more to facilitate and advocate for their employees through the insurance plans they sponsor. We conducted interviews with 14 key informants to understand how large United States employers see their role in health insurance benefits, especially when it comes to reproductive health care access and restrictions in religious health systems. Our findings suggest that large employers wish to be responsive to their employees’ health insurance priorities and have leverage to improve access to reproductive health services, but they do not take sufficient action toward this end. In particular, we argue that large employers could pressure insurance carriers to address network gaps in care resulting from religious restrictions and require insurers to treat out-of-network providers like in-network providers when reproductive care is restricted.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10655,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contraception: X\",\"volume\":\"4 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100078\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590151622000077/pdfft?md5=18c0a7ac01de30f5a3b15d6ad66b918a&pid=1-s2.0-S2590151622000077-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contraception: X\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590151622000077\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contraception: X","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590151622000077","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

美国15-49岁的大多数妇女都有雇主赞助的健康保险,但如果雇员找不到满足生殖健康需要的提供者,这些保险计划就会不足。雇主可以而且应该通过他们赞助的保险计划为员工提供更多便利和支持。我们采访了14位关键信息提供者,以了解美国大型雇主如何看待他们在健康保险福利方面的作用,特别是在生殖保健获取和宗教卫生系统的限制方面。我们的研究结果表明,大型雇主希望对员工的健康保险优先事项做出反应,并有能力改善获得生殖健康服务的机会,但他们没有为此采取足够的行动。特别是,我们认为,大型雇主可以向保险公司施压,以解决因宗教限制而导致的护理网络缺口,并要求保险公司在生殖保健受到限制时,像对待网络内提供者一样对待网络外提供者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Beyond Hobby Lobby: Employer's responsibilities and opportunities to improve network access to reproductive healthcare for employees

The majority of United States (US) women age 15–49 have employer-sponsored health insurance, but these insurance plans fall short if employees cannot find providers who meet reproductive health needs. Employers could and should do more to facilitate and advocate for their employees through the insurance plans they sponsor. We conducted interviews with 14 key informants to understand how large United States employers see their role in health insurance benefits, especially when it comes to reproductive health care access and restrictions in religious health systems. Our findings suggest that large employers wish to be responsive to their employees’ health insurance priorities and have leverage to improve access to reproductive health services, but they do not take sufficient action toward this end. In particular, we argue that large employers could pressure insurance carriers to address network gaps in care resulting from religious restrictions and require insurers to treat out-of-network providers like in-network providers when reproductive care is restricted.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Contraception: X
Contraception: X Medicine-Obstetrics and Gynecology
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊最新文献
Outpatient medical management of later second trimester abortion (18–23.6 weeks) with procedural evacuation backup: A large case series Experiences of delay-causing obstacles and mental health at the time of abortion seeking Maximizing the effectiveness of 1.5 mg levonorgestrel for emergency contraception: The case for precoital use How does person-centered maternity care relate to postpartum contraceptive counseling and use? Evidence from a longitudinal study of women delivering at health facilities in Ethiopia Dilation and evacuation versus medication abortion at 15–24 weeks of gestation in low-middle income country: A retrospective cohort study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1