The role of drug use in welfare to work: Evidence from Houston, Texas

The purpose of this study is to examine the prevalence of drug abuse among welfare recipients in Houston, TX and compare the work activities and employment barriers of drug abusers in order to better understand the potential effects of welfare reform for this population. Four hypotheses were tested comparing the work activities and employment barriers of drug abusers to others on welfare and the relative importance of drug abuse and employment barriers in predicting work activity. ^ This cross-sectional study examined the characteristics and work activities of 447 welfare recipients (81 drug abusers and 366 non-abusers) who were surveyed between October 1998 and April 1999 in Houston, TX. Subjects were introduced and recruited to participate in the study through a flyer, door to door visits, and peer driven recruitment/referral. ^ About 18% were found to be drug abusers, which is consistent with the national average (10–33%) among welfare recipients. Compared to others on welfare, drug abusers were less involved in work activities, and had more employment barriers. Employment barriers were found to be more predictive of welfare to work activities than drug abuse. The results suggest that alleviating employment barriers should be stressed in programs aimed at welfare recipients with drug abuse problems. ^

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.^

ATTITUDES TOWARD AND UTILIZATION OF NON-INVASIVE PRENATAL TESTING FOR CHROMOSOME ANEUPLOIDY AMONG OB/GYNS

Prenatal diagnosis is traditionally made via invasive procedures such as amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling (CVS). However, both procedures carry a risk of complications, including miscarriage. Many groups have spent years searching for a way to diagnose a chromosome aneuploidy without putting the fetus or the mother at risk for complications. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for chromosome aneuploidy became commercially available in the fall of 2011, with detection rates similar to those of invasive procedures for the common autosomal aneuploidies (Palomaki et al., 2011; Ashoor et al. 2012; Bianchi et al. 2012). Eventually NIPT may become the diagnostic standard of care and reduce invasive procedure-related losses (Palomaki et al., 2011). The integration of NIPT into clinical practice has potential to revolutionize prenatal diagnosis; however, it also raises some crucial issues for practitioners. Now that the test is clinically available, no studies have looked at the physicians that will be ordering the testing or referring patients to practitioners who do. This study aimed to evaluate the attitudes of OB/GYN’s and how they are incorporating the test into clinical practice. Our study shows that most physicians are offering this new, non-invasive technology to their patients, and that their practices were congruent with the literature and available professional society opinions. Those physicians who do not offer NIPT to their patients would like more literature on the topic as well as instructive guidelines from their professional societies. Additionally, this study shows that the practices and attitudes of MFMs and OBs differ. Our population feels that the incorporation of NIPT will change their practices by lowering the amount of invasive procedures, possibly replacing maternal serum screening, and that it will simplify prenatal diagnosis. However, those physicians who do not offer NIPT to their patients are not quite sure how the test will affect their clinical practice. From this study we are able to glean how physicians are incorporating this new technology into their practice and how they feel about the addition to their repertoire of tests. This knowledge gives insight as to how to best move forward with the quickly changing field of prenatal diagnosis.

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.)^

Comparison of health behaviors of Mexican American and non -Hispanic White females: Implications for health promotion programs

Hispanics form the second-largest minority group in the United States totaling 22 million people. Health data on this population are sparse and inconsistent. This study seeks to determine use of preventative services and risk factor behaviors of Mexican American and non-Hispanic White females residing in South Texas.^ Baseline data from female respondents in household surveys in six South Texas counties (Ramirez and McAlister, 1988; McAlister et al., 1992) were analyzed to test the following hypotheses: (1) Mexican American and Non-Hispanic White females exhibit different patterns of health behaviors; (2) Mexican American females will exhibit different health behaviors regardless of age; and (3) the differences between Mexican American women and non-Hispanic White females are due to education and acculturation factors.^ Over the past decade, the traditional behaviors of Mexican American females have begun to change due to education, acculturation, and their participation in the labor force. The results from this study identify some of the changes that will require immediate attention from health care providers. Results revealed that regardless of ethnicity, age, education, and language preference, non-Hispanic White females were significantly more likely to participate in preventive screening practices than were Mexican American females. Risk factor analysis revealed a different pattern with Mexican American females significantly more likely to be non-smokers, non-alcoholic drinkers, and to have good fat avoidance practices compared to non-Hispanic White females. However, compared to those who are less-educated or Spanish-speaking, Mexican American females with higher levels of education and preference for speaking English only showed positive and negative health behaviors that were more similar to the non-Hispanic White females. The positive health behaviors that come with acculturation, e.g., more participation in preventive care and more physical activity, are welcome changes. But this study has implications for global health development and reinforces a need for "primordial" prevention strategies to deter the unwanted concomitants of economic development and acculturation. Smoking and drinking behaviors among Mexican American females need to be kept at low levels to prevent increased morbidity and premature deaths in this population. ^