Search

Shape Up Under 5 (SUU5) was a two-year early childhood obesity prevention pilot study in Somerville, Massachusetts (2015–2017) designed to test a novel conceptual framework called Stakeholder-driven Community Diffusion. For whole-of-community interventions, this framework posits that diffusion of stakeholders’ knowledge about and engagement with childhood obesity prevention efforts through their social networks will improve the implementation of health-promoting policy and practice changes intended to reduce obesity risk. SUU5 used systems science methods (agent-based modeling, group model building, social network analysis) to design, facilitate, and evaluate the work of 16 multisector stakeholders (‘the Committee’). In this paper, we describe the design and methods of SUU5 using the conceptual framework: the approach to data collection, and methods and rationale for study inputs, activities and evaluation, which together may further our understanding of the hypothesized processes within Stakeholder-driven Community Diffusion. We also present a generalizable conceptual framework for addressing childhood obesity and similar complex public health issues through whole-of-community interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Safety-net health systems, which serve a disproportionate share of patients at high risk for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, may use revenue generated by the federal drug discount pricing program, known as 340B, to support multidisciplinary care. Budgetary impacts of repealing the drug-pricing program are unknown. Our objective was to conduct a budgetary impact analysis of a multidisciplinary primary care-based HCV treatment program, with and without 340B support. Methods: We conducted a budgetary impact analysis from the perspective of a large safety-net medical center in Boston, Massachusetts. Participants included 302 HCV-infected patients (mean age 45, 75% male, 53% white, 77% Medicaid) referred to the primary care-based HCV treatment program from 2015–2016. Main measures included costs and revenues associated with the treatment program. Our main outcomes were net cost with and without 340B Drug Pricing support. Results: Total program costs were $942,770, while revenues totaled $1.2 million. With the 340B Drug Pricing Program the hospital received a net revenue of $930 per patient referred to the HCV treatment program. In the absence of the 340B program, the hospital would lose $370 per patient referred. Ninety-seven percent (68/70) of patients who initiated treatment in the program achieved a sustained virologic response (SVR) at a net cost of $4,150 each, among this patient subset. Conclusions: The 340B Drug Pricing Program enabled a safety-net hospital to deliver effective primary care-based HCV treatment using a multidisciplinary care team. Efforts to sustain the 340B program could enable dissemination of similar HCV treatment models elsewhere. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]