Policy analysis of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and federal funding concerning barrier-free playgrounds

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 was created to prohibit discrimination against disabled persons in our society. The goal of the ADA as a comprehensive civil rights law is to "ensure equal opportunity and complete participation, independent living and economic self-sufficiency" for disabled persons (U.S. Department of Justice, 2008). As part of Title II and III of the ADA, states and local governments are required to provide people with disabilities the same chance to engage in and benefit from all programs and services including recreational facilities and activities as every other citizen. Recreational facilities and related structures must comply with accessibility standards when creating new structures or renovating existing ones. Through a systematic literature review of articles accessed through online databases, articles relating to children with disabilities, their quality of life and their experience gained through play were reviewed, analyzed and synthesized. Additionally, the ADA's Final Rule regarding accessible playgrounds was evaluated through a descriptive analysis which yielded the following five components relating the importance of barrier-free playgrounds to children with disabilities: appropriate dimensions for children, integration of the play area, variety of activity and stimulation, availability of accessible play structures to communities, and financial feasibility. These components were used as evaluation criteria to investigate the degree to which the ADA's Final Rule document met these criteria. An evaluation of two federal funding sources, the Urban Parks and Recreation Renewal Program (UPARR) and the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), was also conducted which revealed three components relating the two programs' ability to support the realization of the ADA's Final Rule which included: current budget for the program, ability of local communities to attain funds, and level of ADA compliance required to receive funding. Majority of the evaluation of the Final Rule concluded it be adequate in development of barrier-free playgrounds although there are some portions of the guidelines that would benefit from further elucidation. Both funding programs were concluded to not adequately support the development of barrier-free playgrounds and therefore it was recommended that their funding be re-instated or increased as necessary. ^

Birth prevalence of isolated congenital limb reduction defects in Texas 1999--2001

Objective. Congenital limb defects are common birth defects occurring in approximately 2-7/10,000 live births. Because congenital limb defects are pervasive throughout all populations, and the conditions profoundly affect quality of life, they represent a significant public health concern. Currently there is a paucity of etiologic information in the literature regarding congenital limb reduction defects which represents a major limitation in developing treatment strategies as well as identifying high risk pregnancies. ^ Additionally, despite the fact that the majority of congenital limb reduction defects are isolated, most previous studies have not separated them from those occurring as part of a known syndrome or with multiple additional congenital anomalies of unknown etiology. It stands to reason that factors responsible for multiple congenital anomalies that happen to include congenital limb reduction defects may be quite different from those factors leading to an isolated congenital limb reduction defect. ^ As a first step toward gaining etiologic understanding, this cross-sectional study was undertaken to determine the birth prevalence and obtain demographic information about non-syndromic (isolated) congenital limb reduction defects that occurred in Texas from 1999-2001. ^ Methods. The study population included all infants/fetuses with isolated congenital limb reduction defects born in Texas during 1999-2001; the comparison population was all infants who were born to mothers who were residents of Texas during the same period of time. The overall birth prevalence of limb reduction defects was determined and adjusted for ethnicity, gender, site of defect (upper limb versus lower limb), county of residence, maternal age and maternal education. ^ Results. In Texas, the overall birth prevalence of isolated CLRDs was 2.1/10,000 live births (1.5 and 0.6/10,000 live births for upper limb and lower limb, respectively). ^ The risk of isolated lower limb CLRDs in Texas was significantly lower in females when gender was examined individually (crude prevalence odds ratio of 0.57, 95% CI of 0.36-0.91) as well as in relation to all other variables used in the analysis (adjusted prevalence odds ratio of 0.58, 95% CI of 0.36-0.93). ^ Harris County (which includes the Houston metropolitan area) had significantly lower risks of all (upper limb and lower limb combined) isolated CLRDs when examined in relation to other counties in Texas, with a crude prevalence odds ratio of 0.4 (95% CI: 0.29-0.72) and an adjusted prevalence odds ratio of 0.50 (95% CI: 0.31-0.80). The risk of isolated upper limb CLRDs was significantly lower in Harris County (crude prevalence odds ratio of 0.45, CI of 0.26-0.76 and adjusted prevalence odds ratio of 0.49, CI of 0.28-0.84). This trend toward decreased risk in Harris County was not observed for isolated lower limb reduction defects (adjusted prevalence odds ratio of 0.50, 95% confidence interval: 0.22-1.12). ^ Conclusions. The birth prevalence of isolated congenital limb reduction defects in Texas is in the lower limits of the range of rates that have been reported by other authors for other states (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, Washington) and other countries (Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, Ecuador, England, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Mexico, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Spain, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay, and Venezuela). In Texas, the birth prevalence of isolated congenital lower limb reduction defects was greater for males than females, while the birth prevalence of isolated congenital upper limb reduction defects was not significantly different between males and females. The reduced rates of limb reduction defects in Harris County warrant further investigation. This study has provided an important first step toward gaining etiologic understanding in the study of isolated congenital limb reduction defects. ^

Estimates of life expectancy gains from reducing/eliminating major causes of death in the USA: An update analysis for population in 2001--2008

Evaluation of the impact of a disease on life expectancy is an important part of public health. Potential gains in life expectancy (PGLE) that can properly take into account the competing risks are an effective indicator for measuring the impact of the multiple causes of death. This study aimed to measure the PGLEs from reducing/eliminating the major causes of death in the USA from 2001 to 2008. To calculate the PGLEs due to the elimination of specific causes of death, the age-specific mortality rates for heart disease, malignant neoplasms, Alzheimer disease, kidney diseases and HIV/AIDS and life table constructing data were obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics, and the multiple decremental life tables were constructed. The PGLEs by elimination of heart disease, malignant neoplasms or HIV/AIDS continued decreasing from 2001 to 2008, but the PGLE by elimination of Alzheimer's disease or kidney diseases revealed increased trends. The PGLEs (by years) for all race, male, female, white, white male, white female, black, black male and black female at birth by complete elimination of heart disease 2001–2008 were 0.336–0.299, 0.327–0.301, 0.344–0.295, 0.360–0.315, 0.349–0.317, 0.371–0.316,0.278–0.251, 0.272–0.255, and 0.282–0.246 respectively. Similarly, the PGLEs (by years) for all race, male, female, white, white male, white female, black, black male and black female at birth by complete elimination of malignant neoplasms, Alzheimer's disease, kidney disease or HIV/AIDS 2001–2008 were also uncovered, respectively. Most diseases affect specific population, such as, HIV/AIDS tends to have a greater impact on people of working age, heart disease and malignant neoplasms have a greater impact on people over 65 years of age, but Alzheimer's disease and kidney diseases have a greater impact on people over 75 years of age. To measure the impact of these diseases on life expectancy in people of working age, partial multiple decremental life tables were constructed and the PGLEs were computed by partial or complete elimination of various causes of death during the working years. Thus, the results of the study outlined a picture of how each single disease could affect the life expectancy in age-, race-, or sex-specific population in USA. Therefore, the findings would not only assist to evaluate current public health improvements, but also provide useful information for future research and disease control programs.^

The cost of insuring the uninsured in the U.S.

Objectives: This study included two overarching objectives. Through a systematic review of the literature published between 1990 and 2012, the first objective aimed to assess whether insuring the uninsured would result in higher costs compared to insuring the currently insured. Studies that quantified the actual costs associated with insuring the uninsured in the U.S. were included. Based upon 2009 data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), the second objective aimed to assess and compare the self-reported health of populations with four different insurance statuses. The second part of this study involved a secondary data analysis of both currently insured and currently uninsured individuals who participated in the MEPS in 2009. The null hypothesis was that there were no differences across the four categories of health insurance status for self-reported health status and healthcare service use. The alternative hypothesis was that were differences across the four categories of health insurance status for self-reported health status and healthcare service use. Methods: For the systematic review, three databases were searched using search terms to identify studies that actually quantified the cost of insuring the uninsured. Thirteen studies were selected, discussed, and summarized in tables. For the secondary data analysis of MEPS data, this study compared four categories of health insurance status: (1) currently uninsured persons who will become eligible for Medicaid under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) healthcare reforms in 2014; (2) currently uninsured persons who will be required to buy private insurance through the PPACA health insurance exchanges in 2014; (3) persons currently insured under Medicaid or SCHIP; and (4) persons currently insured with private insurance. The four categories were compared on the basis of demographic information, health status information, and health conditions with relatively high prevalence. Chi-square tests were run to determine if there were differences between the four groups in regard to health insurance status and health status. With some exceptions, the two currently insured groups had worse self-reported health status compared to the two currently uninsured groups. Results: The thirteen studies that met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review included: (1) three cost studies from 1993, 1995, and 1997; (2) four cost studies from 2001, 2003, and 2004; (3) one study of disabilities and one study of immigrants; (4) two state specific studies of uninsured status; and (5) two current studies of healthcare reform. Of the thirteen studies reviewed, four directly addressed the study question about whether insuring the uninsured was more or less expensive than insuring the currently insured. All four of the studies provided support for the study finding that the cost of insuring the uninsured would generally not be higher than insuring those already insured. One study indicated that the cost of insuring the uninsured would be less expensive than insuring the population currently covered by Medicaid, but more expensive to insure than the populations of those covered by employer-sponsored insurance and non-group private insurance. While the nine other studies included in the systematic review discussed the costs associated with insuring the uninsured population, they did not directly compare the costs of insuring the uninsured population with the costs associated with insuring the currently insured population. For the MEPS secondary data analysis, the results of the chi-square tests indicated that there were differences in the distribution of disease status by health insurance status. As anticipated, with some exceptions, the uninsured reported lower rates of disease and healthcare service use. However, for the variable attention deficit disorder, the uninsured reported higher disease rates than the two insured groups. Additionally, for the variables high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and joint pain, the currently insured under Medicaid or SCHIP group reported a lower rate of disease than the two currently insured groups. This result may be due to the lower mean age of the currently insured under Medicaid or SCHIP group. Conclusion: Based on this study, with some exceptions, the costs for insuring the uninsured should not exceed healthcare-related costs for insuring the currently uninsured. The results of the systematic review indicated that the U.S. is already paying some of the costs associated with insuring the uninsured. PPACA will expand health insurance coverage to millions of Americans who are currently uninsured, as the individual mandate and insurance market reforms will require. Because many of the currently uninsured are relatively healthy young persons, the costs associated with expanding insurance coverage to the uninsured are anticipated to be relatively modest. However, for the purposes of construing these results, it is important to note that once individuals obtain insurance, it is anticipated that they will use more healthcare services, which will increase costs. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)^