Search

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) establishes essential health benefits as the coverage standard for health plans sold in the individual and small-group markets for all fifty states and the District of Columbia, including the health insurance Marketplaces. “Pediatric services” is one of the required classes of coverage under the ACA. However, other than oral health and vision care, neither the act nor the regulations for implementing it define what these services should be. We investigated how state benchmark plans—the base plan chosen in each state as the standard or benchmark of coverage in that state under ACA rules—address pediatric coverage in plans governed by the essential health benefits standard. Our review of summaries of all the state benchmark plans found that no state specified a distinct pediatric services benefit class. Furthermore, although benchmark plans explicitly included multiple pediatric conditions, many plans also specifically excluded services for children with special health care needs. The Department of Health and Human Services has made a commitment in the essential health benefits regulations to review its approach for the 2016 plan year. Thus, our findings have implications for future regulations regarding the essential health benefits standard for pediatric services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Child poverty in the United States is widespread and has serious negative effects on the health and well-being of children throughout their life course. Child health providers are considering ways to redesign their practices in order to mitigate the negative effects of poverty on children and support the efforts of families to lift themselves out of poverty. To do so, practices need to adopt effective methods to identify poverty-related social determinants of health and provide effective interventions to address them. Identification of needs can be accomplished with a variety of established screening tools. Interventions may include resource directories, best maintained in collaboration with local/regional public health, community, and/or professional organizations; programs embedded in the practice (eg, Reach Out and Read, Healthy Steps for Young Children, Medical-Legal Partnership, Health Leads); and collaboration with home visiting programs. Changes to health care financing are needed to support the delivery of these enhanced services, and active advocacy by child health providers continues to be important in effecting change. We highlight the ongoing work of the Health Care Delivery Subcommittee of the Academic Pediatric Association Task Force on Child Poverty in defining the ways in which child health care practice can be adapted to improve the approach to addressing child poverty., (Copyright © 2016 Academic Pediatric Association. All rights reserved.)

More than 20% of children nationally live in poverty. Pediatric primary care practices are critical points-of-contact for these patients and their families. Practices must consider risks that are rooted in poverty as they determine how to best deliver family-centered care and move toward action on the social determinants of health. The Practice-Level Care Delivery Subgroup of the Academic Pediatric Association's Task Force on Poverty has developed a roadmap for pediatric providers and practices to use as they adopt clinical practice redesign strategies aimed at mitigating poverty's negative impact on child health and well-being. The present article describes how care structures and processes can be altered in ways that align with the needs of families living in poverty. Attention is paid to both facilitators of and barriers to successful redesign strategies. We also illustrate how such a roadmap can be adapted by practices depending on the degree of patient need and the availability of practice resources devoted to intervening on the social determinants of health. In addition, ways in which practices can advocate for families in their communities and nationally are identified. Finally, given the relative dearth of evidence for many poverty-focused interventions in primary care, areas that would benefit from more in-depth study are considered. Such a focus is especially relevant as practices consider how they can best help families mitigate the impact of poverty-related risks in ways that promote long-term health and well-being for children., (Copyright © 2016 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

The Affordable Care Act has caused and continues to cause sweeping changes throughout the health system in the United States. Poorly explained, complex, controversial, confusing, and subject to continuous legal and regulatory definition, the law stands as a hallmark piece of legislation that will change the health sector in America forever. This article summarizes the Affordable Care Act with a focus on children, families, and disparities. Also provided is the context of the current system of health care coverage in the United States., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) establishes essential health benefits as the coverage standard for health plans sold in the individual and small-group markets for all fifty states and the District of Columbia, including the health insurance Marketplaces. "Pediatric services" is one of the required classes of coverage under the ACA. However, other than oral health and vision care, neither the act nor the regulations for implementing it define what these services should be. We investigated how state benchmark plans-the base plan chosen in each state as the standard or benchmark of coverage in that state under ACA rules-address pediatric coverage in plans governed by the essential health benefits standard. Our review of summaries of all the state benchmark plans found that no state specified a distinct pediatric services benefit class. Furthermore, although benchmark plans explicitly included multiple pediatric conditions, many plans also specifically excluded services for children with special health care needs. The Department of Health and Human Services has made a commitment in the essential health benefits regulations to review its approach for the 2016 plan year. Thus, our findings have implications for future regulations regarding the essential health benefits standard for pediatric services., (Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.)

Purpose: Treatment is indicated for simple bone cysts (SBC) with high risk of fracture. The cyst index was described as a method to determine if a cyst is at high risk or low risk of fracture., Study Design: The cyst index of 32 femoral and humeral SBCs was determined by 8 reviewers. The risk group cyst index was compared with whether a fracture took place. Sensitivities, specificities, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated across varying cutoff levels. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability testing for 10 cysts was made., Results: Receiver operator curves demonstrate that no cutoff value gave an acceptable level of both sensitivity and specificity. The mean value for the cyst index was significantly different for different observers (P < 0.05)., Conclusions: This study does not validate the cyst index to be an accurate predictor of fracture. The test has low intraobserver and interobserver reliability., Clinical Relevance: The cyst index cannot reliably discriminate between the patients that will fracture and those that will not.