Comparing the factorial structure, invariance, and predictive validity of transtheoretical model constructs for alcohol use across restricted and unrestricted settings

With substance abuse treatment expanding in prisons and jails, understanding how behavior change interacts with a restricted setting becomes more essential. The Transtheoretical Model (TTM) has been used to understand intentional behavior change in unrestricted settings, however, evidence indicates restrictive settings can affect the measurement and structure of the TTM constructs. The present study examined data from problem drinkers at baseline and end-of-treatment from three studies: (1) Project CARE (n = 187) recruited inmates from a large county jail; (2) Project Check-In (n = 116) recruited inmates from a state prison; (3) Project MATCH, a large multi-site alcohol study had two recruitment arms, aftercare (n = 724 pre-treatment and 650 post-treatment) and outpatient (n = 912 pre-treatment and 844 post-treatment). The analyses were conducted using cross-sectional data to test for non-invariance of measures of the TTM constructs: readiness, confidence, temptation, and processes of change (Structural Equation Modeling, SEM) across restricted and unrestricted settings. Two restricted (jail and aftercare) and one unrestricted group (outpatient) entering treatment and one restricted (prison) and two unrestricted groups (aftercare and outpatient) at end-of-treatment were contrasted. In addition TTM end-of-treatment profiles were tested as predictors of 12 month drinking outcomes (Profile Analysis). Although SEM did not indicate structural differences in the overall TTM construct model across setting types, there were factor structure differences on the confidence and temptation constructs at pre-treatment and in the factor structure of the behavioral processes at the end-of-treatment. For pre-treatment temptation and confidence, differences were found in the social situations factor loadings and in the variance for the confidence and temptation latent factors. For the end-of-treatment behavioral processes, differences across the restricted and unrestricted settings were identified in the counter-conditioning and stimulus control factor loadings. The TTM end-of-treatment profiles were not predictive of drinking outcomes in the prison sample. Both pre and post-treatment differences in structure across setting types involved constructs operationalized with behaviors that are limited for those in restricted settings. These studies suggest the TTM is a viable model for explicating addictive behavior change in restricted settings but calls for modification of subscale items that refer to specific behaviors and caution in interpreting the mean differences across setting types for problem drinkers. ^

Lessons for emerging state Children's Health Insurance Premium Assistance programs: Case study of the Massachusetts Masshealth Family Assistance Program (MHFAP)

Providing health insurance coverage for vulnerable populations such as low-income high-risk children with limited access to health care is a challenge for many states. Over the past decade, higher private insurance premiums and unpredictable labor markets have increased the number of uninsured and underinsured children nationwide. Due to recent economic downfalls, many states such as Texas, have expressed interest in using premium assistance programs to increase enrollment of low income children and families in private coverage through employer sponsored health insurance. Massachusetts has been especially successful in reducing the number of uninsured children through the implementation of MassHealth Family Assistance Program (MHFAP), an employer based premium assistance program. The purpose of this study is to identify key implementation factors of a fully established premium assistance program which may provide lessons and facilitate implementation of emerging premium assistance programs. ^ The case study of the fully established MassHealth Family Assistance Program (MHFAP) has illustrated the ability of states to expand their Medicaid and SCHIP programs in order to provide affordable health coverage to uninsured and underinsured low income children and their families. As demonstrated by MHFAP, the success of a premium assistance program depends on four key factors: (1) determination of participant and employer eligibility; (2) determination of employer benefits meeting benchmark equivalency (Medicaid or State Children's Health Insurance Program); (3) the use of appropriate marketing and outreach strategies; and (4) establishment of adequate monitoring and reporting techniques. Successful implementation strategies, revealed by the case study of the Massachusetts MassHealth Family Assistance Program, may be used by emerging premium assistance programs, such as Texas Children's Health Insurance Premium Assistance Program (CHIP-PA) toward establishment of an effective, efficient, and equitable employer sponsored health program.^

State health care reform: An analysis of strategies

The United States health care system faces significant challenges, particularly with problems of the uninsured and with the rising costs of care. These problems lead many to study and discuss strategies for reforming the health care system. Four different plans for ideal health care reform, set forth by notable scholars or organizations, are explained herein. Then, states within the United States are examined in terms of their recent efforts at health care reform. Those states proposing significant changes to their health care systems are analyzed—namely, Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont. The strategies used in these three states are compared to the strategies laid out by the experts in order to determine which strategies are the most popular in current health care reform efforts among the states studied here. These strategies are totaled to find which organization's plan for ideal reform seems to be the most popular. The strategies of managed competition are shown to be the most popular strategies among these three state health care reforms, while the strategies of the single-payer plan discussed herein were the least popular. All three states seem to utilize strategies that build upon their previous health care system, rather than implementing strategies that completely replace the previous system. ^