Policy analysis of shifting to the state-run Texas women's health program

During the 82nd Texas legislature, state leaders passed a provision stating that healthcare providers, who perform, promote, or affiliate with providers who perform or promote elective abortion services may not be eligible to participate in the Texas Medicaid Women's Health Program (WHP). The federal government reacted to this new provision by vowing to eliminate its 90% share of program support on the grounds that the provision violated a patient's freedom to choose a provider; a right protected by the Social Security Act. Texas leaders stated that the Women's Health Program would continue without federal support, financed exclusively with state funds.^ The following policy analysis compares the projected impact of the current Medicaid Women's Health Program to the proposed state-run program using the criteria-alternative matrix framework. The criteria used to evaluate the program alternatives include population affected, unintended pregnancy and abortion impact, impact on cervical cancer rate, and state-level government expenditures. Each criterion was defined by selected measures. The population affected was measured by the number of women served in the programs. Government expenditures were measured in terms of payments for program costs, Medicaid delivery costs, and cervical cancer diagnostic costs. Unintended pregnancy impact was measured by the number of projected unplanned pregnancies and abortions under each alternative. The impact on cervical cancer was projected in terms of the number of new cervical cancer cases under each alternative. Differences in the projections with respect to each criterion were compared to assess the impact of shifting to the state-only policy.^ After examining program alternatives, it is highly recommended that Texas retain the Medicaid WHP. If the state does decide to move forward with the state-run WHP, it is recommended that the program run at its previous capacity. Furthermore, for the purpose of addressing the relatively high cervical cancer incidence rate in Texas, incorporating HPV vaccination coverage for women ages 18-26 as part of the Women's Health Program is recommended.^

Use of universal precautions in the workplace: A comparison of two fire /EMS services

The Health Belief Model (HBM) provided the theoretical framework for examining Universal Precautions (UP) compliance factors by Firefighter, EMTs and Paramedics (prehospital care providers). A convenient sample of prehospital care providers (n = 4000) from two cities (Houston and Washington DC), were surveyed to explore the factors related to their decision to comply with Universal Precautions. Eight hundred and sixty-five useable questionnaires were analyzed. The responders were primarily male (95.7%) eight hundred and twenty-eight and thirty-seven were female, prehospital based (100%), EMTs (60.0%) and paramedics (12.8%) who had a mean 13 years of prehospital care experience. ^ Linear regression was used to evaluate the four hypotheses. The first hypothesis evaluating perceived susceptibility and seriousness with reported UP use was statistically significant (p = < .05). Perceived susceptibility, when considered independently, did not make a significant contribution (t = −4.2852; p = 0.0000) to the stated use of Universal precautions. The hypothesis is not supported as stated. The data indicates the opposite effect. Supported is the premise that as perceived susceptibility and perceived seriousness increase the use of Universal Precautions decreases. Hypothesis two tested perceived benefits with internal and external barriers. Both perceived benefits and internal and external barriers as well as the overall regression were significant (F = 112.6, p = 0.0000). The contribution of internal and external barriers was statistically significant (t = 0.0175; p = 0.0000) and (t = 0.0128; p = 0.0000). Hypothesis three which tested modifying factors, cues to action, select demographic variables, and the main effects of the HBM with self reported UP compliance overall was significant. The variables gender, birth, education, job type, EMS certification, years of service, years of experience providing patient care, Universal Precautions training hours, type of apparatus assigned to and the number of EMS related incidents responded to in a month were found to have a significant contribution to the stated use of Universal Precautions. ^ The additive effects were tested by use of a stepwise regression that assessed the contribution of each of the significant variables. Three variables in the equation were statistically significant. Internal barriers (t = −8.5507; p = 0.0000), external barriers (t = −6.2862; p = 0.000) and job type 2 & 3. Job type two (t = −2.8464; p = 0.0045 is titled Engineer/Operator. Job type three (t = −2.5730; p = 0.0103) is titled captain. The overall regression was significant (F = 24.06; p = 0.000). The Hypothesis is supported in the certain demographic variables do influence the stated use of Universal precautions and that as internal and external barriers are decreased, there is an increase in the stated use of Universal Precautions. ^ In summary, this study demonstrated that internal and external barriers have a significant impact on the stated use of Universal Precautions. Internal barriers are those factors within the individual that require an internal change (i.e., forgetfulness, freedom, perception of the urgency of the patient's needs etc.) and external barriers are things in the environment that can be altered (i.e., equipment design, availability of equipment, ease of use). These two model variables explained 23%–30% of the variance. ^