Evaluation of the city of Houston HIV/STD prevention program in Houston Independent School District (HISD) high schools

This cross-sectional study was undertaken to evaluate the impact in terms of HIV/STD knowledge and sexual behavior that the City of Houston HIV/STD prevention program in HISD high schools has had on students who have participated in it by comparing them with their peers who have not, based on self reports. The study further evaluated the program cost-effectiveness for averting future HIV infections by computing Cost-Utility Ratios based on reported sexual behavior. ^ Mixed results were obtained, indicating a statistically significant difference in knowledge with the intervention group having scored higher (p-value 0.001) but not for any of the behaviors assessed. The knowledge score outcome's overall p-value after adjusting for each stratifying variable (age, grade, gender and ethnicity) was statistically significant. The Odds Ratio of intervention group participants aged 15 years or more scoring 70% or higher was 1.86 times; that of intervention group female participants was 2.29 times; and that of intervention group Black/African American participants was 2.47 times relative to their comparison group counterparts. The knowledge score results remained statistically significant in the logistic regression model, which controlled for age, grade level, gender and ethnicity. The Odds Ratio in this case was 1.74. ^ Three scenarios based on the difference in the risk of HIV infection between the intervention and comparison group were used for computation of Cost-Utility Ratios: Base, worst and best-case scenario. The best-case scenario yielded cost-effective results for male participants and cost-saving results for female participants when using ethnicity-adjusted HIV prevalence. The scenario remained cost-effective for female participants when using the unadjusted HIV prevalence. ^ The challenge to the program is to devise approaches that can enhance benefits for male participants. If it is a threshold problem implying that male participants require more intensive programs for behavioral change, then programs should first be piloted among boys before being implemented across the board. If it is a reflection of gender differences, then we might have to go back to the drawing board and engage boys in focus group discussions that will help formulate more effective programs. Gender-blind approaches currently in vogue do not seem to be working. ^

Should Texas use public funding for bariatric surgery?

Background. Obesity in America has increased exponentially since the 1970s with no sign of slowing down. It is a major public health problem, and is currently the second leading cause of preventable deaths in America (Flegal et al., 2010). Bariatric surgery is currently the only approved therapy that has shown to have a lasting impact on obese patients. While the initial cost of the surgery remains high, numerous cost-benefit analyses have demonstrated an overall cost saving within two to five years (McEwen et al., 2010). Only three states, including Texas, do not currently fund bariatric surgery through Medicare and Medicaid. ^ Objectives. To determine whether the current data on the cost-benefit analysis of bariatric surgery supports Texas' decision to not publicly fund bariatric surgery through its Medicare and Medicaid programs. ^ Methods. We conducted literature reviews to determine the current cost of obesity in Texas as well as the methods being employed to treat obesity currently. We then analyzed the history of bariatric surgery and its current implementation, looking at safety and the future benefits of bariatric surgery. We then looked at key cost-benefit analyses and meta-analyses to determine the cost effectiveness of bariatric surgery. We then analyzed both direct medical expenditures and indirect benefits of bariatric surgery. ^ Conclusions. If the obesity epidemic continues unabated, it will become one of the leading health expenditures in Texas within decades. Given that surgery is currently the only approved therapy for obesity that has been shown to be effective in the majority of patients, Texas' decision not to publicly fund bariatric surgery is short sighted.^