Commentary on "Child Welfare Waivers: The Stakes for Families"

The purpose of this piece is to provide commentary of an article, Child Welfare Waivers: The Stakes for Your State, that discusses the recent reauthorization of the Title IV-E Child Welfare Waivers. The article provides an overview of funds available to the states for child welfare programs and their intended purpose and restrictions placed on use. As structured, the present system rewards states monetarily for maintaining foster care. Research from waiver programs shows promising results for improved outcomes at the same or lower financial cost by utilizing safe, proven alternatives to the current foster care system. Waiver funds also protect the financial commitment to child welfare because state legislative budget slashing in this area will result in the loss of Federal funding. The independent analysis required with the grant of a waiver must be maintained to provide ongoing analysis and oversight of the increase spending flexibility. Stakeholders must be aware of the program and its results and use these funds as an opportunity to assess new concepts and apply programs best suited to the needs of children in their state. Allowing those “on the ground” to determine appropriate programming and careful result assessment may be the best means for protecting children, preserving families and doing both in a manner that makes the most efficient use of available resources.

The movement toward patient safety: State action related to reporting and disclosure of healthcare-associated infections

Increasing attention has been given to the problem of medical errors over the past decade. Included within that focused attention has been a strong interest in reducing the occurrence of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). Acting concurrently with federal initiatives, the majority of U.S. states have statutorily required reporting and public disclosure of HAI data. Although the occurrence of these state statutory enactments and other state initiatives represent a recognition of the strong concern pertaining to HAIs, vast differences in each state’s HAI reporting and public disclosure requirements creates a varied and unequal response to what has become a national problem.^ The purpose of this research was to explore the variations in state HAI legal requirements and other state mandates. State actions, including statutory enactments, regulations, and other initiatives related to state reporting and public disclosure mechanisms were compared, discussed, and analyzed in an effort to illustrate the impact of the lack of uniformity as a public health concern.^ The HAI statutes, administrative requirements, and other mandates of each state and two U.S. territories were reviewed to answer the following seven research questions: How far has the state progressed in its HAI initiative? If the state has a HAI reporting requirement, is it mandatory or voluntary? What healthcare entities are subject to the reporting requirements? What data collection system is utilized? What measures are required to be reported? What is the public disclosure mechanism? How is the underlying reported information protected from public disclosure or other legal release?^ Secondary publicly available data, including state statutes, administrative rules, and other initiatives, were utilized to examine the current HAI-related legislative and administrative activity of the study subjects. The information was reviewed and analyzed to determine variations in HAI reporting and public disclosure laws. Particular attention was given to the seven key research questions.^ The research revealed that considerable progress has been achieved in state HAI initiatives since 2004. Despite this progress, however, when reviewing the state laws and HAI programs comparatively, considerable variations were found to exist with regards to the type of reporting requirements, healthcare facilities subject to the reporting laws, data collection systems utilized, reportable measures, public disclosure requirements, and confidentiality and privilege provisions. The wide variations in state statutes, administrative rules, and other agency directives create a fragmented and inconsistent approach to addressing the nationwide occurrence of HAIs in the U.S. healthcare system. ^

A comparative state policy analysis of the adoption of birth defects surveillance legislation

Birth defects are the leading cause of infant mortality in the United States and are a major cause of lifetime disability. However, efforts to understand their causes have been hampered by a lack of population-specific data. During 1990–2004, 22 state legislatures responded to this need by proposing birth defects surveillance legislation (BDSL). The contrast between these states and those that did not pass BDSL provides an opportunity to better understand conditions associated with US public health policy diffusion. ^ This study identifies key state-specific determinants that predict: (1) the introduction of birth defects surveillance legislation (BDSL) onto states' formal legislative agenda, and (2) the successful adoption of these laws. Secondary aims were to interpret these findings in a theoretically sound framework and to incorporate evidence from three analytical approaches. ^ The study begins with a comparative case study of Texas and Oregon (states with divergent BDSL outcomes), including a review of historical documentation and content analysis of key informant interviews. After selecting and operationalizing explanatory variables suggested by the case study, Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) was applied to publically available data to describe important patterns of variation among 37 states. Results from logistic regression were compared to determine whether the two methods produced consistent findings. ^ Themes emerging from the comparative case study included differing budgetary conditions and the significance of relationships within policy issue networks. However, the QCA and statistical analysis pointed to the importance of political parties and contrasting societal contexts. Notably, state policies that allow greater access to citizen-driven ballot initiatives were consistently associated with lower likelihood of introducing BDSL. ^ Methodologically, these results indicate that a case study approach, while important for eliciting valuable context-specific detail, may fail to detect the influence of overarching, systemic variables, such as party competition. However, QCA and statistical analyses were limited by a lack of existing data to operationalize policy issue networks, and thus may have downplayed the impact of personal interactions. ^ This study contributes to the field of health policy studies in three ways. First, it emphasizes the importance of collegial and consistent relationships among policy issue network members. Second, it calls attention to political party systems in predicting policy outcomes. Finally, a novel approach to interpreting state data in a theoretically significant manner (QCA) has been demonstrated.^