THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FEDERAL FAMILY PLANNING POLICY: AN ANALYSIS OF FACTORS AFFECTING STATE EXPENDITURES, FISCAL YEARS 1976-1981 (WOMEN, BUDGET, POPULATION)

The purpose of this study was to analyze the implementation of national family planning policy in the United States, which was embedded in four separate statutes during the period of study, Fiscal Years 1976-81. The design of the study utilized a modification of the Sabatier and Mazmanian framework for policy analysis, which defined implementation as the carrying out of statutory policy. The study was divided into two phases. The first part of the study compared the implementation of family planning policy by each of the pertinent statutes. The second part of the study identified factors that were associated with implementation of federal family planning policy within the context of block grants.^ Implemention was measured here by federal dollars spent for family planning, adjusted for the size of the respective state target populations. Expenditure data were collected from the Alan Guttmacher Institute and from each of the federal agencies having administrative authority for the four pertinent statutes, respectively. Data from the former were used for most of the analysis because they were more complete and more reliable.^ The first phase of the study tested the hypothesis that the coherence of a statute is directly related to effective implementation. Equity in the distribution of funds to the states was used to operationalize effective implementation. To a large extent, the results of the analysis supported the hypothesis. In addition to their theoretical significance, these findings were also significant for policymakers insofar they demonstrated the effectiveness of categorical legislation in implementing desired health policy.^ Given the current and historically intermittent emphasis on more state and less federal decision-making in health and human serives, the second phase of the study focused on state level factors that were associated with expenditures of social service block grant funds for family planning. Using the Sabatier-Mazmanian implementation model as a framework, many factors were tested. Those factors showing the strongest conceptual and statistical relationship to the dependent variable were used to construct a statistical model. Using multivariable regression analysis, this model was applied cross-sectionally to each of the years of the study. The most striking finding here was that the dominant determinants of the state spending varied for each year of the study (Fiscal Years 1976-1981). The significance of these results was that they provided empirical support of current implementation theory, showing that the dominant determinants of implementation vary greatly over time. ^

Should Texas use public funding for bariatric surgery?

Background. Obesity in America has increased exponentially since the 1970s with no sign of slowing down. It is a major public health problem, and is currently the second leading cause of preventable deaths in America (Flegal et al., 2010). Bariatric surgery is currently the only approved therapy that has shown to have a lasting impact on obese patients. While the initial cost of the surgery remains high, numerous cost-benefit analyses have demonstrated an overall cost saving within two to five years (McEwen et al., 2010). Only three states, including Texas, do not currently fund bariatric surgery through Medicare and Medicaid. ^ Objectives. To determine whether the current data on the cost-benefit analysis of bariatric surgery supports Texas' decision to not publicly fund bariatric surgery through its Medicare and Medicaid programs. ^ Methods. We conducted literature reviews to determine the current cost of obesity in Texas as well as the methods being employed to treat obesity currently. We then analyzed the history of bariatric surgery and its current implementation, looking at safety and the future benefits of bariatric surgery. We then looked at key cost-benefit analyses and meta-analyses to determine the cost effectiveness of bariatric surgery. We then analyzed both direct medical expenditures and indirect benefits of bariatric surgery. ^ Conclusions. If the obesity epidemic continues unabated, it will become one of the leading health expenditures in Texas within decades. Given that surgery is currently the only approved therapy for obesity that has been shown to be effective in the majority of patients, Texas' decision not to publicly fund bariatric surgery is short sighted.^