Assessing the Environmental Protection Agency's guidelines for cumulative risk assessment: Are they suitable for state agencies and EPA regional offices?

In the field of health risk analysis, cumulative risk assessment (CRA) is a necessary, although undeniably more complex approach to understanding the mixture of stressors, whether chemical or psychosocial, that exist in our environment, in all the pathways through which the chemicals may evolve—air, soil, or water, as well as the accumulation of these exposures over time. Related, or attached to the developing awareness of scientists understanding this mix of combined health effects is the burgeoning of the environmental justice movement, in which educated community advocates and even affected community members have called attention to evidence of a higher pollution burden in minority and/or lower SES communities. The intention of this paper is to 1) examine the development and understanding of CRA, primarily by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2) to assess several states agencies and some EPA regional offices' interpretation of CRA, again based primarily on EPA guidance, and 3) to analyze how CRA might be refined in its implementation—giving some cues as to how the EPA may more effectively interact with communities interested in CRA.^

The welfare state determinants of health: Implications of regimes and pathways

Background. Population health within and between nations is heavily influenced by political determinants, yet these determinants have received significantly less attention than socioeconomic factors in public health. It has been hypothesized that the welfare state, as a political variable, may play a particularly prominent role in affecting both health indicators and health disparities in developed countries. The research, however, provides conflicting evidence regarding the health impact of particular regimes over others and the mechanisms through which the welfare state can most significantly affect health.^ Objective. To perform a systematic review of the literature as a means of exploring what the current research indicates regarding the benefits or detriments of particular regimes styles and the pathways through which the welfare state can impact heath indicators and health disparities within developed countries.^ Methods. A thorough search of the EBSCO, Pubmed, Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus electronic databases was conducted and resulted in the identification of 15 studies that evaluated the association between welfare state regime and population health outcomes, and/or pathways through with the welfare state influences health. ^ Results. Social democratic countries tended to perform best when infant mortality rate (IMR) was the primary outcome of interest, whereas liberal countries performed strongly in relation to self perceived health. The results were mixed regarding welfare state effectiveness in mitigating health inequities, with Christian democratic countries performing as well as social democratic countries. In relation to welfare state pathways, public health spending and medical coverage were associated with positive health indicators. Redistributive impact of the welfare state was also consistently associated with better health outcomes while social security expenditures were not.^ Discussion/Conclusions. Studies consistently discovered a significant relationship between the welfare state and population health and/or health disparities, lending support to the hypothesis that the welfare state is, indeed, an important non-medical determinant of health. However, it is still fairly unclear which welfare state regime may be most protective for health, as results varied according to the measured health indicator. The research regarding welfare state pathways is particularly undeveloped, and does not provide much insight into the importance of in-kind service provision or cash transfers, or targeted or universal approaches to the welfare state. Suggestions to direct future research are provided.^

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. ^