Abortion Clinics Are Moving From States With Bans to Those Without, Raising Questions About Whether Bans Can Be Enforced Across State Lines.

This Medical News feature discusses the flight of clinics from states with abortion bans to those without them.

Health Care Use Among Latinx Children After 2017 Executive Actions on Immigration.

BACKGROUND: US immigration policy changes may affect health care use among Latinx children. We hypothesized that January 2017 restrictive immigration executive actions would lead to decreased health care use among Latinx children. METHODS: We used controlled interrupted time series to estimate the effect of executive actions on outpatient cancellation or no-show rates from October 2016 to March 2017 ("immigration action period") among Latinx children in 4 health care systems in North Carolina. We included control groups of (1) non-Latinx children and (2) Latinx children from the same period in the previous year ("control period") to account for natural trends such as seasonality. RESULTS: In the immigration action period, 114 627 children contributed 314 092 appointments. In the control period, 107 657 children contributed 295 993 appointments. Relative to the control period, there was an immediate 5.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40%-10.9%) decrease in cancellation rates among all Latinx children, but no sustained change in trend of cancellations and no change in no-show rates after executive immigration actions. Among uninsured Latinx children, there was an immediate 12.7% (95% CI: 2.3%-23.1%) decrease in cancellations; however, cancellations then increased by 2.4% (95% CI: 0.89%-3.9%) per week after immigration actions, an absolute increase of 15.5 cancellations per 100 appointments made. CONCLUSIONS: There was a sustained increase in cancellations among uninsured Latinx children after immigration actions, suggesting decreased health care use among uninsured Latinx children. Continued monitoring of effects of immigration policy on child health is needed, along with measures to ensure that all children receive necessary health care.

Centro de optometría y centro de refracción: norma técnica No. 12-2020­DRACES / Optometry Center and Refraction Center: Technical Standard No. 12-2020 ­ DRACES

Un poco apagada la tinta del documento y dificulta un poco la lectura DRACES [Departamento de Regulación, Acreditación y Control de Establecimientos de Salud] Este documento tiene como objeto "la regulación, autorización y control de los centros de optometría y centro de refracción, en concordancia con el Reglamento para la Regulación, Autorización, Acreditación y Control de Establecimientos de Atención para la Salud, Acuerdo Gubernativo No. 376-2007." Es de carácter obligatorio. Contiene además, las definiciones de los conceptos relacionados al tema principal, además de la infraestructura que deberá tener cada centro, incluidos el equipo y recurso humano y técnico.

Health Policy for Dialysis Care in Canada and the United States.

Contemporary dialysis treatment for chronic kidney failure is complex, is associated with poor clinical outcomes, and leads to high health costs, all of which pose substantial policy challenges. Despite similar policy goals and universal access for their kidney failure programs, the United States and Canada have taken very different approaches to dealing with these challenges. While US dialysis care is primarily government funded and delivered predominantly by private for-profit providers, Canadian dialysis care is also government funded but delivered almost exclusively in public facilities. Differences also exist for regulatory mechanisms and the policy incentives that may influence the behavior of providers and facilities. These differences in health policy are associated with significant variation in clinical outcomes: mortality among patients on dialysis is consistently lower in Canada than in the United States, although the gap has narrowed in recent years. The observed heterogeneity in policy and outcomes offers important potential opportunities for each health system to learn from the other. This article compares and contrasts transnational dialysis-related health policies, focusing on key levers including payment, finance, regulation, and organization. We also describe how policy levers can incentivize favorable practice patterns to support high-quality/high-value, person-centered care and to catalyze the emergence of transformative technologies for alternative kidney replacement strategies.

Medication abortion use among low-income and rural Texans before and during state-imposed restrictions and after FDA-updated labeling.

BACKGROUND: In 2013, the Texas legislature passed House Bill 2, restricting use of medication abortion to comply with Food and Drug Administration labeling from 2000. The Food and Drug Administration updated its labeling for medication abortion in 2016, alleviating some of the burdens imposed by House Bill 2. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to identify the impact of House Bill 2 on medication abortion use by patient travel distance to an open clinic and income status. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, we collected patient zip code, county of residence, type of abortion, family size, and income data on all patients who received an abortion (medication or aspiration) from 7 Texas abortion clinics in 3 time periods: pre-House Bill 2 (July 1, 2012-June 30, 2013), during House Bill 2 (April 1, 2015-March 30, 2016), and post-Food and Drug Administration labeling update (April 1, 2016-March 30, 2017). Patient driving distance to the clinic where care was obtained was categorized as 1-24, 25-49, 50-99, or 100+ miles. Patient county of residence was categorized by availability of a clinic during House Bill 2 (open clinic), county with a House Bill 2-related clinic closure (closed clinic), or no clinic any time period. Patient income was categorized as ≤110% federal poverty level (low-income) and >110% federal poverty level. Change in medication abortion use in the 3 time periods by patient driving distance, residence in a county with an open clinic, and income status were evaluated using χ2 tests and logistic regression. We used geospatial mapping to depict the spatial distribution of patients who obtained a medication abortion in each time period. RESULTS: Among 70,578 abortion procedures, medication abortion comprised 26%, 7%, and 29% of cases pre-House Bill 2, during House Bill 2, and post-Food and Drug Administration labeling update, respectively. During House Bill 2, patients traveling 100+ miles compared to 1- 24 miles were less likely to use medication abortion (odds ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.15, 0.30), as were low-income compared to higher-income patients (odds ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.68, 0.85), and low-income, distant patients (adjusted odds ratio, 0.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.08, 0.25). Similarly, post-Food and Drug Administration labeling update, rebound in medication abortion use was less pronounced for patients traveling 100+ miles compared to 1-24 miles (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.74, 0.91), low-income compared to higher-income patients (odds ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.72, 0.81), and low-income, distant patients (adjusted odds ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.68, 0.94). Post-Food and Drug Administration labeling update, patients residing in counties with House Bill 2-related clinic closures were less likely to receive medication abortion as driving distance increased (52% traveling 25-49 miles, 41% traveling 50-99 miles, and 26% traveling 100+ miles, P < .05). Geospatial mapping demonstrated that patients traveled from all over the state to receive medication abortion pre-House Bill 2 and post-Food and Drug Administration labeling update, whereas during House Bill 2, only those living in or near a county with an open clinic obtained medication abortion. CONCLUSION: Texas state law drastically restricted access to medication abortion and had a disproportionate impact on low-income patients and those living farther from an open clinic. After the Food and Drug Administration labeling update, medication abortion use rebounded, but disparities in use remained.

Rogue stem cell clinics.

Cell therapies hold significant promise for the treatment of injured or diseased musculoskeletal tissues. However, despite advances in research, there is growing concern about the increasing number of clinical centres around the world that are making unwarranted claims or are performing risky biological procedures. Such providers have been known to recommend, prescribe, or deliver so called 'stem cell' preparations without sufficient data to support their true content and efficacy. In this annotation, we outline the current environment of stem cell-based treatments and the strategies of marketing directly to consumers. We also outline the difficulties in the regulation of these clinics and make recommendations for best practice and the identification and reporting of illegitimate providers. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(2):148-154.

Characteristics of Women Who Present for Abortion Beyond the Legal Limit in Flanders, Belgium.

CONTEXT: Women who seek abortion care beyond the first trimester of gestation are often in a vulnerable socioeconomic position with limited social support, and in Belgium, the details of their circumstances are insufficiently understood. A better understanding of this group is essential to a critical evaluation of Belgian abortion policy, which restricts abortions on request after the first trimester. METHODS: Anonymized patient records were collected between 2013 and 2016 from LUNA centers, which are non-hospital-based abortion clinics in Flanders. Logistic regression analyses were used to identify associations between women's characteristics and whether they presented within or beyond the legal limit, which was 13 weeks and 1 day at the time of the study. RESULTS: A total of 28,741 women requested an abortion, and 972 individuals (3.4%) presented beyond the legal limit; 29% of these latter women were unable to receive abortion care as a result of the mandatory six-day waiting period. Characteristics positively associated with presenting beyond the limit, instead of beforehand, were being younger than 20, as opposed to 20-24 (odds ratio, 1.7); receiving a primary, lower secondary, upper secondary or special-needs education, rather than a higher education (1.8-3.1); being unemployed, rather than employed (1.3); and holding Belgian rather than a foreign nationality (0.8). Being accompanied by someone to the LUNA center (0.8), having irregularly (0.6) or regularly used contraceptives (0.7), and having ever had an abortion (0.8) were negatively associated with presenting beyond, rather than before, the limit. CONCLUSIONS: A fuller consideration of patients' characteristics when evaluating Belgian abortion policy is needed to ensure that the needs and rights of socioeconomically vulnerable women are addressed.

Freestanding Emergency Departments: What Is Their Role in Emergency Care?

Freestanding emergency departments (EDs), health care facilities that offer emergency care without being physically attached to a hospital, are becoming more common throughout the United States. Many individuals propose that these facilities can help alleviate the stress our current emergency care system faces and provide care to people with limited access to traditional hospital-based EDs. We reviewed the current literature on freestanding EDs to investigate whether these facilities are meeting those goals. We found that although they provide care that is generally similar in quality and cost to that of hospital-based EDs, freestanding EDs tend to cater to a more affluent patient population that already has access to health care instead of expanding care to underserved areas. This, coupled with a fragmented system of state-by-state regulation, leads us to recommend implementing more uniform licensing criteria from state to state, encouraging freestanding EDs to operate in more rural and underserved areas, and increasing price transparency.

Abortion Disclosure Laws and the First Amendment: The Broader Public Health Implications of the Supreme Court's Becerra Decision.

In 2018, the US Supreme Court analyzed a California state requirement that clinics serving pregnant women must provide government notices-1 for licensed clinics about the availability of state health services including abortion and 1 for unlicensed clinics, notifying potential clients that the clinics are not licensed medical facilities and have no licensed medical professionals on-site. The Supreme Court found that both notices violated the First Amendment rights of the clinics. The Supreme Court's opinion elicits new uncertainties about the government's ability to require the disclosure of factual information in the context of reproductive health services and more broadly in the commercial context. However, the Supreme Court's silence on 1 of the state's purposes for the unlicensed clinic notice, which was to address deceptive speech by the clinics, highlights a potential avenue for future regulation. Policymakers can require the disclosure of factual information in the commercial context specifically to prevent consumer deception consistent with the First Amendment. Public health researchers can generate evidence to support such disclosure requirements intended to protect health and safety.

Consensus Guidelines for Facilities Performing Outpatient Procedures: Evidence Over Ideology.

In policy and law, regulation of abortion is frequently treated differently from other health services. The safety of abortion is similar to that of other types of office- and clinic-based procedures, and facility requirements should be based on assuring high-quality, safe performance of all such procedures. False concerns for patient safety are being used as a justification for promoting regulations that specifically target abortion. The Project on Facility Guidelines for the Safe Performance of Primary Care and Gynecology Procedures in Offices and Clinics was undertaken by clinicians, consumers, and representatives from accrediting bodies to review the available evidence and guidelines that inform safe delivery of outpatient care. Our overall objective was to develop evidence-informed consensus guidelines to promote health care quality, safety, and accessibility. Our consensus determined that requiring facilities performing office-based procedures, including abortion, to meet standards beyond those currently in effect for all general medical offices and clinics is unjustified based on an analysis of available evidence. No safety concerns were identified.

The Impact of a 72-hour Waiting Period on Women's Access to Abortion Care at a Hospital-Based Clinic in North Carolina.

BACKGROUND In 2015, North Carolina became the 5th state to pass legislation requiring women to undergo state-mandated counseling 72 hours prior to abortion. Whether this legislation has changed the timing of abortion decision-making or receipt of care is not known.METHODS This is a cross-sectional study using anonymous survey data from women presenting for abortion at a hospital-based abortion clinic in North Carolina. Data were collected for 8 weeks immediately before and after implementation of the new waiting period.RESULTS 26/48 (54%) of eligible patients participated. More than half (56%) of women made their abortion decision relatively quickly (less than or equal to 3 days), but had a median time-to-care of almost a week.LIMITATIONS This small study is the 1st recent evaluation of abortion decision-making and receipt of care immediately before and after implementation of a 72-hour waiting period in a Southern state. Only women presenting for care at a single hospital-based clinic were surveyed. Data were self-reported.CONCLUSION In our clinical setting, most women decided to have an abortion quickly but still waited 10-15 days before receiving care. Extended waiting periods provide no medical benefits and the potential for harm and delay of care remains.

The Affordable Care Act Decreased the Proportion of Uninsured Patients in a Safety Net Orthopaedic Clinic.

BACKGROUND: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was approved in 2010, substantially altering the economics of providing and receiving healthcare services in the United States. One of the primary goals of this legislation was to expand insurance coverage for under- and uninsured residents. Our objective was to examine the effect of the ACA on the insurance status of patients at a safety net clinic. Our institution houses a safety net clinic that provides the dominant majority of orthopaedic care for uninsured patients in our state. Therefore, our study allows us to accurately examine the magnitude of the effect on insurance status in safety net orthopaedic clinics. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Did the ACA result in a decrease in the number of uninsured patients at a safety net orthopaedic clinic that provides the dominant majority of orthopaedic care for the uninsured in the state? (2) Did the proportion of patients insured after passage of the ACA differ across age or demographic groups in one state? METHODS: We retrospectively examined our longitudinally maintained adult orthopaedic surgery clinic database from January 2009 to March 2015 and collected visit and demographic data, including zip code income quartile. Based on the data published by the Rhode Island Department of Health, our clinic provides the dominant majority of orthopaedic care for uninsured patients in our state. Therefore, examination of the changes in the proportion of insurance status in our clinic allows us to assess the effect of the ACA on the state level. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to determine the relationship between demographic variables and insurance status. Adjusted odds ratios and 95% CIs were calculated for the proportion of uninsured visits. The proportion of uninsured visits before and after implementation of the ACA was evaluated with an interrupted time-series analysis. The reduction in the proportion of patients without insurance between demographic groups (ie, race, gender, language spoken, and income level) also was compared using an interrupted time-series design. RESULTS: There was a 36% absolute reduction (95% CI, 35%-38%; p < 0.001) in uninsured visits (73% relative reduction; 95% CI, 71%-75%; p < 0.001). There was an immediate 28% absolute reduction (95% CI, 21%-34%; p < 0.001) at the time of ACA implementation, which continued to decline thereafter. After controlling for potential confounding variables such as gender, race, age, and income level, we found that patients who were white, men, younger than 65 years, and seen after January 2014 were more likely to have insurance than patients of other races, women, older patients, and patients treated before January 2014. CONCLUSIONS: After the ACA was implemented, the proportion of patients with health insurance at our safety net adult orthopaedic surgery clinic increased substantially. The reduction in uninsured patients was not equal across genders, races, ages, and incomes. Future studies may benefit from identifying barriers to insurance acquisition in these subpopulations. The results of this study could affect orthopaedic practices in the United States by guiding policy decisions regarding health care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

State Law Approaches to Facility Regulation of Abortion and Other Office Interventions.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the prevalence and characteristics of facility laws governing abortion provision specifically (targeted regulation of abortion providers [TRAP] laws); office-based surgeries, procedures, sedation or anesthesia (office interventions) generally (OBS laws); and other procedures specifically. METHODS: We conducted cross-sectional legal assessments of state facility laws for office interventions in effect as of August 1, 2016. We coded characteristics for each law and compared characteristics across categories of laws. RESULTS: TRAP laws (n = 55; in 34 states) were more prevalent than OBS laws (n = 25; in 25 states) or laws targeting other procedures (n = 1; in 1 state). TRAP laws often regulated facilities that would not be regulated under OBS laws (e.g., all TRAP laws, but only 2 OBS laws, applied regardless of sedation or anesthesia used). TRAP laws imposed more numerous and more stringent requirements than OBS laws. CONCLUSIONS: Many states regulate abortion-providing facilities differently, and more stringently, than facilities providing other office interventions. The Supreme Court's 2016 decision in Whole Woman's Health v Hellerstedt casts doubt on the legitimacy of that differential treatment.