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.^

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. ^