Building A Comprehensive, Longitudinal Dataset to Advance Research on the Efficacy of State-Level Anti-bullying Legislation: 1999 to 2017.

Bullying is one of the most common forms of youth violence and is associated with myriad adverse consequences over the life course. There has been increasing interest in examining whether anti-bullying legislation is effective in preventing bullying victimization and its negative effects. However, a lack of data structures that comprehensively and longitudinally assess anti-bullying legislation and its provisions has hampered this effort. We provide 18 years of data (1999-2017) on anti-bullying legislation and amendments across 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, which we are making publicly available at LawAtlas.org. This article describes how the legal content analysis was conducted, provides information on the reliability of the coding, and details provisions of the legislation that were coded, such as funding provisions and enumerated groups (a total of 122 individual codes are provided). Over 90% of states had at least one amendment to their legislation during this 18-year period (range: 0-22; Mean = 6.1), highlighting both the evolving content of anti-bullying statutes and the importance of tracking these changes with longitudinal data. Additionally, we offer illustrative examples of the kinds of research questions that might be pursued with these new data. For instance, using survival analyses, we show that a variety of state characteristics (e.g., political leaning of state legislatures) predict time to adoption of key provisions of anti-bullying legislation (e.g., the comprehensiveness of legal provisions). Finally, we end with a discussion of how the dataset might be used in future research on the efficacy of anti-bullying legislation.

Disarming Intimate Partner Violence Offenders: An In-Depth Descriptive Analysis of Federal and State Firearm Prohibitor Laws in the United States, 1991-2016.

Intimate partner violence is a preventable public health problem affecting more than 12 million people in the United States annually. The immense burden of victimization is most often borne by women. Nearly one in two female homicide victims are killed by current or former partners (more than 50% of which involve firearms). Firearm-related morbidity and mortality are concentrated where firearm ownership is most prevalent and firearm laws are least restrictive, indicating the potential for law to serve as an intervention. Understanding intricacies within laws and how they vary is critical to studying their influence on health. This study is the first to use the scientific legal mapping technique of policy surveillance to create legal data by systematically collecting and coding laws that authorize or require courts to prohibit offenders subject to domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs) and temporary restraining orders (TROs) from purchasing and possessing firearms ("firearm prohibitor" laws). These data measure key provisions of federal and state laws from 1991 to 2016, including whether the law includes a firearm prohibition, who qualifies as an intimate partner, notice and hearing requirements, whether the prohibition occurs automatically or through judicial discretion, and if the law permits or requires the relinquishment or removal of firearms. The federal law, enacted in 1994 (and reauthorized in 2022), only protects qualifying victims that obtain final DVROs. States can mirror or go beyond federal measures. From 1991 to 2016, 38 states enacted a firearm prohibitor law through DVROs (37 states), TROs (20 states), or both (19 states). Today, survivors suffer from a sluggish and fragmented legal system leading to the unequal protection of victims based on where they happen to live. This research provides an in-depth descriptive analysis of this complex and nuanced legal system, recommendations to spur policy reform, and longitudinal data for future research.

Trends Over Time and Jurisdiction Variability in Supplemental Security Income and State Supplementary Payment Programs for Children With Disabilities.

CONTEXT: Nearly 1.2 million children with disabilities received federally administered Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments in 2017. Based on a robust review of research and evaluation evidence and microsimulations, The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine committee identified modifications to SSI (ie, increasing the federal SSI benefit maximum by one-third or two-thirds) as 1 of 10 strategies that could reduce the US child poverty rate, improving child health and well-being on a population level. OBJECTIVE: Describing the availability and amount of SSI and State Supplementary Payment (SSP) program benefits to support families of children with disabilities may be a first step toward evaluating The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine-proposed modification to SSI as a potential poverty alleviation and health improvement tool for children with disabilities and their families. DESIGN: We used public health law research methods to characterize the laws (statutes and state agency regulations) governing the federal SSI program and SSP programs in the 50 states and District of Columbia from January 1, 1996, through November 1, 2018. RESULTS: The number of jurisdictions offering supplementary payments (SSP) was relatively stable between 1996 and 2018. In 2018, 23 US jurisdictions legally mandated that SSP programs were available for children. Among the states with SSP payment amounts in their codified laws, SSP monthly benefit amounts ranged from $8 to $64.35 in 1996 and $3.13 to $60.43 in 2018. CONCLUSION: Our initial exploration of SSI-related policies as a tool for improving the economic stability of children with disabilities and their families suggests that current SSPs, in combination with SSI, would not rise to the level of SSI increases proposed by The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Understanding more about how SSI and SSP reach children and work in combination with other federal and state income security programs may help identify policies and strategies that better support children with disabilities in low-income households.

Advancing Diabetes-Related Equity Through Diabetes Self-Management Education and Training: Existing Coverage Requirements and Considerations for Increased Participation.

America is in the grips of a diabetes epidemic. Underserved communities disproportionately bear the burden of diabetes and associated harms. Diabetes self-management education and training (DSME/T) may help address the epidemic. By empowering patients to manage their diabetes, DSME/T improves health outcomes and reduces medical expenditures. However, participation in DSME/T remains low. Insurance coverage offers 1 approach for increasing participation in DSME/T. The impact of DSME/T insurance coverage on advancing diabetes-related health equity depends on which types of insurers must cover DSME/T and the characteristics of such coverage. We conducted a legal survey of DSME/T coverage requirements for private insurers, Medicaid programs, and Medicare, finding that substantial differences exist. Although 43 states require that private insurers cover DSME/T, only 30 states require such coverage for most or all Medicaid beneficiaries. Public health professionals and decision makers may find this analysis helpful in understanding and evaluating patterns and gaps in DSME/T coverage.

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.

Medicaid Prior Authorization Policies for Medication Treatment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Young Children, United States, 2015.

OBJECTIVES: In 2011, the American Academy of Pediatrics updated its guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) to recommend that clinicians refer parents of preschoolers (aged 4-5) for training in behavior therapy and subsequently treat with medication if behavior therapy fails to sufficiently improve functioning. Data available from just before the release of the guidelines suggest that fewer than half of preschoolers with ADHD received behavior therapy and about half received medication. About half of those who received medication also received behavior therapy. Prior authorization policies for ADHD medication may guide physicians toward recommended behavior therapy. Characterizing existing prior authorization policies is an important step toward evaluating the impact of these policies on treatment patterns. We inventoried existing prior authorization policies and characterized policy components to inform future evaluation efforts. METHODS: A 50-state legal assessment characterized ADHD prior authorization policies in state Medicaid programs. We designed a database to capture data on policy characteristics and authorization criteria, including data on age restrictions and fail-first behavior therapy requirements. RESULTS: In 2015, 27 states had Medicaid policies that prevented approval of pediatric ADHD medication payment without additional provider involvement. Seven states required that prescribers indicate whether nonmedication treatments were considered before Medicaid payment for ADHD medication could be approved. CONCLUSION: Medicaid policies on ADHD medication treatment are diverse; some policies are tied to the diagnosis and treatment guidelines of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Evaluations are needed to determine if certain policy interventions guide families toward the use of behavior therapy as the first-line ADHD treatment for young children.