Pennsylvania is one of 28 states that has not expanded the scope of practice in its licensure laws for certified registered nurse practitioners (NPs), who must maintain formal collaborative agreements with physicians to practice. For many years, proposals to update licensure and adapt it to make it more compatible with current models of collaborative care could not overcome legislative logjams. Recognizing an opportunity to break the logjam, the University of Pennsylvania held a virtual workshop on November 20, 2020, bringing together researchers, health professionals, and consumers to chart a new path forward. This policy brief summarizes their recommendations to update scope of practice regulation to better meet the primary care needs of Pennsylvanians.
In the run-up to the presidential election, the affordability of health care remains a top concern of the American voting public. But how do we know when health care is affordable? On a policy level, how do we set a standard for affordability that can be implemented in a reformed system? Sometimes policy debates about affordability focus only on whether insurance premiums are affordable, although consumers tend to be concerned about both premiums and out-of-pocket costs. At Penn LDI's Medicare for All and Beyond conference, a panel of researchers, policy experts, and consumer advocates discussed and debated affordability in theory and practice. What emerged was a clearer understanding of the value judgments needed, friction points encountered, and principles that policymakers should apply to ensure that health coverage is affordable. This issue brief summarizes the panel's insights.
The application of behavioral economics to health and health care has captured the imagination of policymakers across the political spectrum. The idea is that many people are irrational in predictable ways, and that this both contributes to unhealthy behaviors like smoking and holds one of the keys to changing those behaviors. Because health care costs continue to increase, and a substantial portion of costs are incurred because of unhealthy behaviors, employers and insurers have great interest in using financial incentives to change behaviors. However, it is in the details that complexity and controversies emerge. Who should the targets be, and what outcomes should be rewarded? How should incentives be structured, to maximize their effectiveness and minimize unintended consequences? In what situations should we be intervening to affect decisions by people who may prefer to be obese or to smoke, and in what situations should we accept their preferences? To begin to answer these questions, the Penn-CMU Roybal P30 Center on Behavioral Economics and Health held its first annual Behavioral Economics and Health Symposium on March 24-25, 2011 with support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The symposium drew more than 50 researchers, scholars, and health professionals from a variety of disciplines, including medicine, public health, economics, law, management, marketing, and psychology. They heard perspectives on behavioral economics from public and private funders, the CEO of the University of Pennsylvania Health System, and the CEO of stickK.com, a start-up company that uses online, voluntary commitment contracts to help people achieve their goals. Participants formed eight working groups to review the current state-of-the-art in a variety of clinical contexts and to consider how behavioral economics could inform a research agenda to improve health. This Issue Brief summarizes the findings of these working groups and the symposium.
Health insurers participating in the new Marketplaces are filing rates for 2015 during the next few months. A few states have already released data on proposed rates. There is substantial economic, policy, and political interest in the magnitude of proposed rate changes. This brief provides background for understanding the economic drivers of proposed rates, state and federal rate review authority, the effects of rate changes on Marketplace enrollees and federal spending on premium credits, and the economic and political dynamics of the rate review and approval process.
This review examines prominent state efforts to expand health coverage to the remaining uninsured. It analyzes and compares efforts in Massachusetts, Vermont, Colorado, California, and Nevada and highlights insights and themes that emerge. It explores the context and climate for reform within the state, stakeholder involvement, political coalitions, financing, and possible opposition. As such, it serves as a case study in how different states build, or fail to build, the popular and political will towards health care coverage for all residents. This is the first in a series of reports that will monitor and analyze developments at the state level to expand coverage and improve access to care.
Because the ACA gave them choices in how to implement insurance coverage, health reform looks different state to state. This Data Brief examines a number of choices related to the establishment and running of the new health insurance marketplaces, and their potential impact on enrollment rates to date. We use existing data sources as well as a new database developed by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania that documents and codes state-level variation in the political setting, institutional structures, and operational decisions likely to affect outcomes on the marketplaces.
Abstract Background Suicide is a global public health problem. Recently in the U.S., much attention has been given to preventing suicide and other premature mortality in veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. A strong predictor of suicide is a past suicide attempt, and suicide attempters have multiple physical and mental comorbidities that put them at risk for additional causes of death. We examined mortality among U.S. military veterans after hospitalization for attempted suicide. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted with all military veterans receiving inpatient treatment during 1993-1998 at United States Veterans Affairs (VA) medical facilities following a suicide attempt. Deaths occurring during 1993-2002, the most recent available year at the time, were identified through VA Beneficiary and Records Locator System data and National Death Index data. Mortality data for the general U.S. adult population were also obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics. Comparisons within the veteran cohort, between genders, and against the U.S. population were conducted with descriptive statistics and standardized mortality ratios. The actuarial method was used estimate the proportion of veterans in the cohort we expect would have survived through 2002 had they experienced the same rate of death that occurred over the study period in the U.S. population having the age and sex characteristics. Results During 1993-1998, 10,163 veterans were treated and discharged at a VA medical center after a suicide attempt (mean age = 44 years; 91% male). There was a high prevalence of diagnosed alcohol disorder or abuse (31.8%), drug dependence or abuse (21.8%), psychoses (21.2%), depression (18.5%), and hypertension (14.2%). A total of 1,836 (18.1%) veterans died during follow up (2,941.4/100,000 person years). The cumulative survival probability after 10 years was 78.0% (95% CI = 72.9, 83.1). Hence the 10-year cumulative mortality risk was 22.0%, which was 3.0 times greater than expected. The leading causes overall were heart disease (20.2%), suicide (13.1%), and unintentional injury (12.7%). Whereas suicide was the ninth leading cause of death in the U.S. population overall (1.8%) during the study period, suicide was the leading and second leading cause among women (25.0%) and men (12.7%) in the cohort, respectively. Conclusions Veterans who have attempted suicide face elevated risks of all-cause mortality with suicide being prominent. This represents an important population for prevention activities.
Background:Despite significant progress in HIV treatment and prevention, the US remains far from its goal of 'Ending the HIV Epidemic' by 2030. Economic models using local data can synthesise the evidence to help policymakers allocate HIV resources efficiently, but persistent research-to-practice gaps remain. Little is known about how to facilitate the use of economic modelling data among local public health policymakers in real-world settings. Aims and objectives:To explore the dissemination of results from a locally-calibrated economic model for HIV prevention and treatment and identify the factors influencing potential uptake of the model for public health decision making at the local level. Methods:Four virtual focus groups with 26 local health department policymakers in Baltimore, Miami, Seattle, and New York City were held between July 2020 and May 2021. Qualitative content analysis of transcripts identified key themes around using the localised economic model in policy decisions. Results:Participants were interested in using local data in their decisions to allocate resources for HIV prevention/treatment. Six themes emerged: 1) importance of understanding local policy context; 2) health equity considerations; 3) using evidence to support current priorities; 4) difficulty of changing strategies, even incrementally; 5) bang for the incremental buck (efficiency) vs. previous impact; and 6) community values. Conclusion and relevance:To optimise acceptance and use of results from economic models, researchers should engage with local community members and public health decision makers early to understand budgetary and community priorities. Participants prioritised evidence that supports their existing strategies, considers budgets and funding streams, and improves health equity; however, real-world budget constraints and conflicting interests serve as barriers to implementing model recommendations and reaching national goals.
