Search

What is known about this topic? We discuss a recently published paper that alleges clinicians are causal agents of non-compliant billing of Medicare. What does this paper add? The paper's arguments are partially supported by unreferenced assertions, potential logical fallacies, inaccurate reporting of referenced material and unsubstantiated rhetoric. What are the implications for practitioners? Due to the lack of substantive evidence, it cannot be concluded that clinicians are the causal agents of non-compliant billing of Medicare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The US government response to the coronavirus pandemic has prompted renewed debate about the size and structure of the welfare state. Particular attention has been paid to prenatal and early childhood policy, domains in which the US safety net is less robust than those of its peer countries. Contra claims that the so-called care economy constitutes a sharp break with the neoliberal consensus, this article argues that the shift in social policy focus toward early life is consistent with changes in economic ideas about the best environment in which to grow "human capital": the economization of early life. Building on insights about "critical periods" of development drawn from diverse fields including epigenetics and neurobiology, economists estimate that human capital gains are greatest when "investments in people" occur before the age of five. This article traces the history of how this research was brought to the attention of federal policy makers in the United States. While much human capital–focused social policy traditionally placed the burden of risk on the private family (e.g., with student loan debt or health insurance), in recent years, economists have instead argued that social programs dedicated to early childhood development are more "efficient" sources of public investment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States offers two markedly different subsidy structures for private health insurance. When covered through employer-based plans, employees and their dependents benefit from the exclusion from taxable income of the premiums. Individuals without access to employer coverage may obtain subsidies for Marketplace coverage. This paper seeks to understand how the public subsidies embedded in the privately financed portion of the U.S. healthcare system impact the payments families are required to make under both ESI and Marketplace coverage, and the implications for finance equity. Using the Household Component of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS-HC) and Marketplace premium data, we assess horizontal and vertical equity by calculating public subsidies for and expected family spending under each coverage source and using Lorenz curves and Gini and concentration coefficients. Our study pooled the 2018 and 2019 MEPS-HC to achieve a sample size of 10,593 observations. Our simulations showed a marked horizontal inequity for lower-income families with access to employer coverage who cannot obtain Marketplace subsidies. Relative to both the financing of employer coverage and earlier Marketplace tax credits, the more generous Marketplace premium subsidies, first made available in 2021 under the American Rescue Plan Act, substantially increased the vertical equity of Marketplace financing. While Marketplace subsidies have clearly improved equity within the United States, we conclude with a comparison to other OECD countries highlighting the persistence of inequities in the U.S. stemming from its noteworthy reliance on employer-based private health insurance. • United States uses employer and individual private health insurance coverage. • No recent investigations of horizontal and vertical equity of U.S. private coverage. • Analysis of Gini coefficients and Lorenz curves suggests regressivity. • Public policies including insurance subsidies can reduce inequities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A majority of individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP) in the U.S. are foreign-born, creating a complex intersection of language, socio-economic, and policy barriers to healthcare access and achieving good outcomes. Mapping the research literature is key to addressing how LEP intersects with healthcare. This scoping review followed PRISMA-ScR guidelines and included PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, Sociological Abstracts, EconLit, and Academic Search Premier. Study selection included quantitative studies since 2000 with outcomes specified for adults with LEP residing in the U.S. related to healthcare service access or defined health outcomes, including healthcare costs. A total of 137 articles met the inclusion criteria. Major outcomes included ambulatory care, hospitalization, screening, specific conditions, and general health. Overall, the literature identified differential access to and utilization of healthcare across multiple modalities with poorer outcomes among LEP populations compared with English-proficient populations. Current research includes inconsistent definitions for LEP populations, primarily cross-sectional studies, small sample sizes, and homogeneous language and regional samples. Current regulations and practices are insufficient to address the barriers that LEP individuals face to healthcare access and outcomes. Changes to EMRs and other data collection to consistently include LEP status and more methodologically rigorous studies are needed to address healthcare disparities for LEP individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the significance and implications of enforcing the Robinson-Patman Act (RPA) as a means of controlling buyer and seller power in the U.S. It explores the historical context, objectives, and enforcement measures related to the RPA, highlighting its role in promoting fair competition, preventing market concentration, and safeguarding democracy within the political economy.

Introduction: An appropriate economic evaluation of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) should consider the effectiveness of different regimens prescribed for patients. Studies have not evaluated the comparative effectiveness of different PEP antiretrovirals (ARVs) based on their costs. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of ARVs regimens used for PEP in Nigerian tertiary hospitals. Material and methods: This cross-sectional study collated patients' demographic and clinical data from PEP databases of United States' President Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief - AIDS Prevention Initiative in Nigeria hospitals. Costs of ARVs were obtained from donors' price list. Effectiveness was measured as the percentage of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-negative patients one-month post-PEP. Average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACERs) were computed as the unit cost of the regimens/HIV infection averted (HIA). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted using 1,000 iterations using Monte-Carlo simulation. Results: Out of 575 patients identified, 198 (34.4%) had non-occupational exposure. Of the 14 regimens, tenofovir (TDF) + lamivudine (3TC) + ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (ATV/r) was prescribed for 230 (40.00%) patients. HIV-negative results were documented in 129 (22.4%) of the 185 patients with post-PEP test. Zidovudine (AZT) + 3TC + ATV-r was the most effective (95.5%, n = 63 of 66) regimen, while TDF + emtricitabine (FTC) + ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) was the most expensive ($23.66). With an ACER of $8.110/HIV infection prevented (95% CI: $8.052-$8.168), TDF + 3TC + efavirenz (EFV) was the most cost-effective regimen. Conclusions: AZT + 3TC + LPV/r was the most effective regimen, while TDF + FTC + ATV/r was the most expensive. However, TDF + 3TC + EFV combination was the most cost-effective regimen used in providing PEP service to HIV patients in Nigerian hospitals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Parental leave and breastfeeding breaks influence the ability to initiate and continue breastfeeding. We investigated how eligibility criteria in the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and Affordable Care Act (ACA) affect access to unpaid parental leave and breastfeeding breaks and assessed affordability and alternative policy models. Methods: We used family income data to assess the affordability of unpaid leave by race and ethnicity. We used 2017-2018 US Current Population Survey data to determine the percentage of private sector workers aged 18-44 years who met the minimum hour (1250 hours of work during a 12-month period), tenure (12 months), and firm size (≥50 employees) requirements of FMLA and ACA. We analyzed eligibility by gender, race and ethnicity, and age. We also examined parental leave and breastfeeding break policies in 193 countries. Results: Most Latinx (66.9%), Black (60.2%), and White (55.3%) workers were ineligible and/or unlikely to be able to afford to take unpaid FMLA leave. Of 69 534 workers, more women (16.9%) than men (10.3%) did not meet the minimum hour requirement. Minimum tenure excluded 23.7% of all workers and 42.2% of women aged 18-24 years. Minimum firm size excluded 30.3% of all workers and 37.7% of Latinx workers. Of 27 520 women, 28.8% (including 32.9% of Latina women) were excluded from ACA breastfeeding breaks because of firm size. Nearly all other countries guaranteed mothers paid leave regardless of firm size or minimum hours and guaranteed ≥6 months of paid leave or breastfeeding breaks. Conclusions: Adopting a comprehensive, inclusive paid parental leave policy and closing gaps in breastfeeding break legislation would remove work-related barriers to breastfeeding; reduce racial, ethnic, and gender inequities; and align US national policies with global norms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]