Suchergebnisse

In 2011, North Carolina (NC) created a program to facilitate Medicaid enrollment for state prisoners experiencing community inpatient hospitalization during their incarceration. The program, which has been described as a model for prison systems nationwide, has saved the NC prison system approximately $10 million annually in hospitalization costs and has potential to increase prisoners' access to Medicaid benefits as they return to their communities. This study aims to describe the history of NC's Prison-Based Medicaid Enrollment Assistance Program (PBMEAP), its structure and processes, and program personnel's perspectives on the challenges and facilitators of program implementation. We conducted semi-structured interviews and a focus group with PBMEAP personnel including two administrative leaders, two "Medicaid Facilitators," and ten social workers. Seven major findings emerged: 1) state legislation was required to bring the program into existence; 2) the legislation was prompted by projected cost savings; 3) program development required close collaboration between the prison system and state Medicaid office; 4) technology and data sharing played key roles in identifying inmates who previously qualified for Medicaid and would likely qualify if hospitalized; 5) a small number of new staff were sufficient to make the program scalable; 6) inmates generally cooperated in filling out Medicaid applications, and their cooperation was encouraged when social workers explained possible benefits of receiving Medicaid after release; and 7) the most prominent program challenges centered around interaction with county Departments of Social Services, which were responsible for processing applications. Our findings could be instructive to both Medicaid non-expansion and expansion states that have either implemented similar programs or are considering implementing prison Medicaid enrollment programs in the future.

AbstractIntroductionPre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a promising tool for HIV prevention during pregnancy. With increasing rollout in antenatal settings, counselling strategies to help pregnant women make appropriate decisions about PrEP use are needed. Understanding women's motivations and concerns for PrEP use—and how these inform their decision making and feelings about the decision to start PrEP—are critical to inform these strategies.MethodsWe conducted a convergent mixed‐methods study from June 2020 to June 2021 in the context of a PrEP adherence support trial among HIV‐negative pregnant women in Lilongwe, Malawi. Two hundred women completed a survey reporting their motivations and concerns about PrEP use, and their feelings about the decision to start PrEP (Decisional Regret Scale). Thirty women completed in‐depth interviews to better understand the decision‐making process, including motivations and concerns weighed in women's decision to use PrEP. Analyses comprised descriptive and bivariate statistics, thematic qualitative analysis, and integration of quantitative and qualitative results.ResultsWomen initiating PrEP during pregnancy were highly motivated to obtain HIV protection for themselves and their unborn child, often due to perceived HIV risk connoted by a recent sexually transmitted infection and/or concerns about partner non‐monogamy. These motivations prevailed despite some concerns about safety and side effects, anticipated stigmatization, and concerns about adherence burden and pill attributes. Many women had informed their partner of their decision to use PrEP yet few felt their decision was contingent upon partner approval. Most women felt positively about the decision to start PrEP (mean decisional regret = 1.2 out of 5), but those with a greater number of concerns reported greater decisional regret (B = 0.036; p = 0.005). Furthermore, women who were specifically concerned about partner disclosure, who disliked pills or who had no perceived HIV risk reported greater decisional regret.ConclusionsPregnant women were strongly motivated by the promise of HIV protection offered by PrEP and accepted it despite diverse concerns. A shared decision‐making approach that centres pregnant women and offers partner involvement may help identify and address initial concerns about PrEP use and support prevention‐effective use of PrEP during this important period.