Assessing the need and options available for trauma physician funding in Texas

Efforts have been made to provide supplemental funding to emergency departments to offset the costs of uncompensated medical care. But a problem exists within the trauma system in Texas that has largely been overlooked by the state. This project will focus on the lack of funding available to physicians and on-call specialists who contract with hospitals to provide emergency care. ^ A lack of funding and reimbursement for emergency care is directly influencing the number of medical specialists willing to provide emergency treatment in hospitals on a contractual basis. A shortage of emergency physicians has an impact on the public health of all Texans who may need trauma care in a hospital. Specifically, a shortage of emergency physicians can lead to a complete denial of specialty emergency health care, a delay in patient treatment, and increased ambulance diversions. Quality and access barriers to emergency services undoubtedly threaten the stability of the trauma care system in Texas and the health status of its citizens. ^ In 2003, Texas took a significant step towards addressing the issue of uncompensated care provided by the trauma system and passed House Bill 3588, creating the Trauma Facilities and Emergency Medical Services Fund (“the Trauma Fund”). However, the primary shortfall to this legislation is that the Trauma Fund is only available to emergency medical service providers and hospitals. The Trauma Fund does little to help offset the cost incurred by contracting physicians and on-call specialists who provide emergency services to the uninsured. ^ This paper addresses how funding shortages for emergency department physicians negatively impact the trauma care system in Texas and the policy options available to create physician funding to offset the cost of uncompensated trauma care. Ultimately this paper concludes that although creating a new funding stream similar to the actions taken in other states would be a dramatic step towards addressing the problem, the political process in Texas may slow implementation of this option. Consequently, modifying existing legislation, although the weaker of the options, may be more attractive to those looking for immediate action. ^

The Texas driver responsibility program: A preliminary analysis of the impact on impaired driving and trauma system funding

Objective. In 2003, the State of Texas instituted the Driver Responsibility Program (TDRP), a program consisting of a driving infraction point system coupled with a series of graded fines and annual surcharges for specific traffic violations such as driving while intoxicated (DWI). Approximately half of the revenues generated are earmarked to be disbursed to the state's trauma system to cover uncompensated trauma care costs. This study examined initial program implementation, the impact of trauma system funding, and initial impact on impaired driving knowledge, attitudes and behaviors. A model for targeted media campaigns to improve the program's deterrence effects was developed. ^ Methods. Data from two independent driver survey samples (conducted in 1999 and 2005), department of public safety records, state health department data and a state auditor's report were used to evaluate the program's initial implementation, impact and outcome with respect to drivers' impaired driving knowledge, attitudes and behavior (based on constructs of social cognitive theory) and hospital uncompensated trauma care funding. Survey results were used to develop a regression model of high risk drivers who should be targeted to improve program outcome with respect to deterring impaired driving. ^ Results. Low driver compliance with fee payment (28%) and program implementation problems were associated with lower surcharge revenues in the first two years ($59.5 million versus $525 million predicted). Program revenue distribution to trauma hospitals was associated with a 16% increase in designated trauma centers. Survey data demonstrated that only 28% of drivers are aware of the TDRP and that there has been no initial impact on impaired driving behavior. Logistical regression modeling suggested that target media campaigns highlighting the likelihood of DWI detection by law enforcement and the increased surcharges associated with the TDRP are required to deter impaired driving. ^ Conclusions. Although the TDRP raised nearly $60 million in surcharge revenue for the Texas trauma system over the first two years, this study did not find evidence of a change in impaired driving knowledge, attitudes or behaviors from 1999 to 2005. Further research is required to measure whether the program is associated with decreased alcohol-related traffic fatalities. ^

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. ^

EU Budgetary Responses to the ‘Refugee Crisis’: Reconfiguring the Funding Landscape. CEPS Paper Liberty and Security in Europe No. 93/May 2016

This paper analyses the EU budgetary responses to the ‘refugee crisis’ in Europe. The European Commission has proposed several changes to the EU budget as well as the establishment of new funding instruments. The paper explores what the announced funding consists of, what role it plays in policy-making and what issues it generates. Throughout these budgetary responses the search for flexibility has been dominant, motivated by the need to respond more swiftly to humanitarian and operational needs. In addition, the paper argues that beyond implementation or management, the role of funding is also symbolic and communicative. In light of limited competences that are difficult to exercise, funding represents a powerful tool enabling the Commission to shape policy-making in times of crisis. At the same time, the dominant search for flexibility also challenges established funding rules and procedures. It has furthermore led to reduced space for democratic scrutiny by the European Parliament. More profoundly, EU funding for cooperation with third countries to prevent the inflow of refugees and asylum seekers has monetised questions over the responsibility for these individuals. As the EU–Turkey agreement shows, this has created a self-imposed dependence on third countries, with the risk of potentially insatiable demands for EU funding. This paper questions the proportionality and rule of law compliance of allocating funding for the implementation of this agreement. Moreover, it proposes that the Commission take steps to practically safeguard the humanitarian aid principles in the management structures of the new funding instruments, and it stresses the need for more scrutiny of the reconfigured funding landscape by the European Parliament and the European Court of Auditors.