Criminal Records and Licensure in Five Allied Health Professions: Is There Evidence of a Disparate Impact on Historically Marginalized Groups?

CONTEXT: In health care, licensing is pervasive. Restrictions on applicants with criminal records may have a disparate impact on historically marginalized groups. There is bipartisan interest in evaluating whether occupational licensing requirements are too strict. METHODS: The authors analyze how 12 representative states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Texas) respond when people with criminal records apply for a license for five entry-level allied health professions (dental hygienist, occupational therapy assistant, physical therapy assistant, radiologic technologist, and respiratory therapist). FINDINGS: With one exception for one allied health profession, all states require their licensing boards to consider past serious criminal convictions. A majority of states require the conviction to be substantially related to the scope of professional duties for it to provide a basis for disqualification. Most states make it difficult for applicants with criminal records to determine whether they may obtain a license. CONCLUSIONS: State licensing boards have considerable discretion in handling applicants with a criminal record. The trend is toward fewer restrictions, but more could be done to increase the transparency of state licensing board guidelines, practices, and procedures-particularly in the states that still rely on a "good moral character" test.

Something went wrong on the way to the courthouse.

Almost without exception, law professors dismissed the possibility that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) might be unconstitutional - but something went wrong on the way to the courthouse. What explains the epic failure of law professors to accurately predict how Article 3 judges would approach the case? This essay identifies three distinct but complementary factors that might help explain the observed failure. First, instead of conducting a neutral assessment of the actual probabilities, law professors engaged in motivated reasoning, based on their preexisting political and policy preferences. Second, the psychology of constitutional law professors led them to massively overstate the probability of success and suppress any misgivings or cautious hedging. Third, once it became clear that the PPACA was in serious jeopardy, our nation's law professors decided to pursue politics by other means, and organized the academic equivalent of a vigilance committee.

Public reporting of hospital infection rates: ranking the states on credibility and user friendliness.

Health-care associated infections ("HAIs") kill about 100,000 people annually; most are preventable, but many hospitals have not aggressively addressed the problem. In response, twenty-five states and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services require public reporting of hospital infection rates for at least some types of infections, and other states and private entities are implementing such reporting. The websites and related reports vary widely in ease of access, ease of use, usefulness of information, timeliness of updates, and credibility. We report on work in progress, in which we assess the quality and suitability of different state websites and reports for different target audiences (ordinary consumers; physicians, and infection control professionals) and the extent to which they meet best practices for online communication, including Stanford's "Fogg" Guidelines for Web Credibility and user-friendliness metrics developed by other researchers. We find wide variation in quality, and substantial correlation between measures of website credibility and user-friendliness. We identify ways to improve usability, usefulness, and tailoring for information to different target audiences. Our analysis suggests that the "one website (and report format) fits all users" model may not work well in delivering complex, technical information to users with widely varying needs and sophistication.

Pharmacy Benefit Managers: History, Business Practices, Economics, and Policy.

Importance: Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) play a major role in the provision of pharmacy services by acting as intermediaries between pharmacies, plan sponsors (insurance companies and employers), pharmaceutical manufacturers, and drug wholesalers. As their role and visibility have increased, PBMs have come under increased scrutiny from policymakers. However, no prior literature has systematically described the history, business practices, and policymaking of PBMs. Objective: To provide an overview of the PBM industry, including its history, the evolution of services provided by PBMs, an assessment of the current policy landscape, and analysis of how proposed policies could affect PBM practices and patient care. Evidence: This work reviews historical events; previous and current industry practices and publications; prior academic literature, existing statutes, regulations, and court cases; and recent legislative reforms and agency actions regarding PBMs. Findings: Pharmacy benefit managers evolved in parallel with the pharmaceutical manufacturing and health insurance industries. The evolution of the PBM industry has been characterized by horizontal and vertical integration and market concentration. The PBM provides 5 key functions: formulary design, utilization management, price negotiation, pharmacy network formation, and mail order pharmacy services. Criticism of the PBM industry centers around the lack of competition, pricing, agency problems, and lack of transparency. Legislation to address these concerns has been introduced at the state and federal levels, but the potential for these policies to address concerns about PBMs is unknown and may be eclipsed by private sector responses. Conclusions and Relevance: Pharmacy benefit managers are intermediaries in the pharmaceutical supply chain and perform multiple roles in the management and distribution of pharmaceuticals to patients. When regulating PBMs, it is important to adopt policies that address market failure problems by improving PBM competition as opposed to policies designed to serve the narrow financial interests of other market participants (eg, pharmacies, pharmaceutical manufacturers) without meeting the needs of consumers.

Association of Past and Future Paid Medical Malpractice Claims.

Importance: Many physicians believe that most medical malpractice claims are random events. This study assessed the association of prior paid claims (including a single prior claim) with future paid claims; whether public disclosure of prior paid claims affects future paid claims; and whether the association of prior and future paid claims decayed over time. Objective: To examine the association of 1 or more prior paid medical malpractice claims with future paid claims. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study assessed the association between prior paid claims (including a single prior claim) with future claims; whether public disclosure of prior claims affects future paid claims; and whether the association of prior and future paid claims decayed over time. This retrospective case-control study included all 881 876 licensed physicians in the US. All data analysis took place between July, 2018 and January, 2023. Exposure: Paid medical malpractice claims. Main Outcome and Measures: Association between a prior paid medical malpractice claim and likelihood of a paid claim in a future period, compared with simulated results expected if paid claims are random events. Using the same outcomes, we also assessed whether public disclosure of paid claims affects future paid claim rates. Results: This study included all 881 876 physicians licensed to practice in the US at the time of the study. Overall, 3.3% of the 841 961 physicians with 0 paid claims in the prior period had 1 or more claims in the future period vs 12.4% of the 34 512 physicians with 1 paid claim in the prior period; 22.4% of the 4189 physicians with 2 paid claims in the prior period; and 37% of the 1214 physicians with 3 paid claims in the prior period. The association between prior claims and future claims was similar for high-medical-malpractice-risk and lower-risk specialties; 1 prior-period claim was associated with a 3.1 times higher likelihood of a future-period claim for high-risk specialties (95% CI, 2.8-3.4) vs a 4.2 times higher likelihood for lower-risk specialties (95% CI, 3.8-4.6). The predictive power of a prior paid claim for future claims declined gradually as the time since the prior claim increased, for prior or future periods up to 10 years. Public disclosure did not affect the association between prior and future paid claims. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of paid medical malpractice claims for all US physicians, a single prior paid claim was associated with substantial, long-lived higher future claim risk, independent of whether a physician was practicing in a high- or low-risk specialty, or whether a state publicly disclosed paid claims. Timely, noncoercive intervention, including education, has the potential to reduce future claims.

Follow the money: money matters in health care, just like in everything else.

I suspect that our collective search for villains--for someone to blame--has distracted us and our political leaders from addressing the fundamental causes of our nation's health-care crisis. All of the actors in health care--from doctors to insurers to pharmaceutical companies--work in a heavily regulated, massively subsidized industry full of structural distortions. They all want to serve patients well. But they also all behave rationally in response to the economic incentives those distortions create. Accidentally, but relentlessly, America has built a health-care system with incentives that inexorably generate terrible and perverse results. Incentives that emphasize health care over any other aspect of health and well-being. That emphasize treatment over prevention. That disguise true costs. That favor complexity and discourage transparent competition based on price or quality.

Pricing and Paying for Cancer Drugs: Policy Options for Fixing A Broken System.

The US system for pricing and paying for cancer drugs is badly broken. The evidence is all around us-whether we focus on total spending, the breathtakingly high prices for chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, the exceedingly high prices for many recently introduced drugs that offer only marginal improvements over existing treatments, or the increasing unaffordability of patient copayments. These problems are compounded by the distortions created by our payment policies, which do not take account of the value of competing treatment options and are structured in ways that distort physicians' incentives. We review the key drivers of cancer drug spending and consider the trade-offs of various policy options for addressing this problem.

Interventional Pharmacoeconomics.

The increasing cost of health care is a major challenge around the world, but particularly in the United States. One reason for increased costs is the rapidly rising cost of oncology drugs. Potential solutions to this problem involve broad changes to health policy. However, an alternative solution is the development of lower-cost off-label treatment regimens, based on pharmacologic rationale, with significant potential economic impact. The pharmacologic and clinical properties of many drugs allow for a variety of different strategies. We describe this approach of interventional pharmacoeconomics and provide multiple individual examples.

Health Insurance Coverage-Is Broader Always Better?

This Viewpoint discusses the traditional goals of health insurance and contrasts those with the current needs of insurance beneficiaries.

The Medicalization of Poverty: A Dose of Theory.

Is the medicalization of poverty a rational and humane response to an intractable problem, or just the latest in a long series of ineffective and costly attempts to address the problem? Considerable ink has been spilled on the dispute, with each side marshalling heart-rending anecdotes to help make their case - along with the obligatory statistics and regression analyses. Rather than add more verbiage to that dispute, this article sketches out a framework for understanding the phenomenon of medicalization, along with a description of the demand-side and supply-side factors that have brought us to this pass.

Damage caps and defensive medicine, revisited.

Does tort reform reduce defensive medicine and thus healthcare spending? Several (though not all) prior studies, using a difference-in-differences (DiD) approach, find lower Medicare spending for hospital care after states adopt caps on non-economic or total damages ("damage caps"), during the "second" reform wave of the mid-1980s. We re-examine this issue in several ways. We study the nine states that adopted caps during the "third reform wave," from 2002 to 2005. We find that damage caps have no significant impact on Medicare Part A spending, but predict roughly 4% higher Medicare Part B spending. We then revisit the 1980s caps, and find no evidence of a post-adoption drop (or rise) in spending for these caps.

Patterns of Facial Fractures and Protective Device Use in Motor Vehicle Collisions From 2007 to 2012.

IMPORTANCE: Facial fractures after motor vehicle collisions are a significant source of facial trauma in patients seen at trauma centers. With recent changes in use of seat belts and advances in airbag technology, new patterns in the incidence of facial fractures after motor vehicle collisions have yet to be quantified. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the incidence of facial fractures and assess the influence of protective device use in motor vehicle collisions in patients treated at trauma centers in the United States. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using a data set from the National Trauma Data Bank, we retrospectively assessed facial fractures in motor vehicle collisions occurring from 2007 through 2012, reported by level I, II, III, and IV trauma centers. Data analysis was performed from March 13 to September 22, 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We characterized the data set by subsite of facial injury using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes including mandible, midface, and nasal fractures. We assessed the influence of variables such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, crash occupant (driver or passenger), use of protective device, and presence or suspicion of alcohol use. RESULTS: A total of 518 106 patients required assessment at a trauma center after a motor vehicle collision, with 56 422 (10.9%) experiencing at least 1 facial fracture. Nasal fracture was the most common facial fracture (5.6%), followed by midface (3.8%), other (3.2%), orbital (2.6%), mandible (2.2%), and panfacial fractures (0.8%). Of the subset sustaining at least 1 facial fracture, 5.8% had airbag protection only, 26.9% used a seat belt only, and 9.3% used both protective devices, while 57.6% used no protective device. Compared with no protective device, the use of an airbag alone significantly reduced the likelihood of facial fracture after a motor vehicle collision (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.79-0.86); use of a seat belt alone had a greater effect (odds ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.56-0.58) and use of both devices provided the greatest odds reduction (odds ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.45-0.48). Younger age, male sex, and alcohol use significantly increased the likelihood of facial fracture. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: For patients who presented to US trauma centers after motor vehicle collisions between 2007 and 2012, airbags, seat belts, and the combination of the 2 devices incrementally reduced the likelihood of facial fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act: what every physician should know about the federal antidumping law.

Since 1986, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) has imposed an obligation on hospitals and physicians to evaluate and stabilize patients who present to a hospital ED seeking care. Available sanctions for noncompliance include fines, damages awarded in civil litigation, and exclusion from Medicare. EMTALA uses several terms that are familiar to physicians (eg, "emergency medical condition," "stabilize," and "transfer"), but the statutory definitions do not map neatly onto the way in which these terms are used and understood in clinical settings. Thus, there is potential for a mismatch between a physician's on-the-spot professional judgment and what the statute demands. We review what every physician should know about EMTALA and answer six common questions about the law.

Monopoly, monopsony, and market definition: an antitrust perspective on market concentration among health insurers.

James Robinson uses the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) to compute the concentration of commercial health insurance markets in most of the states during the past four years. The HHI is the analytical foundation for the federal antitrust merger guidelines, so we consider his findings from an antitrust perspective. Market concentration provides an important benchmark for antitrust analysis, but it does not, standing alone, indicate the presence of problematic (anticompetitive) behavior or a problem that antitrust law can solve. Even if it did, there are major problems in treating individual states as discrete insurance markets. Unless the market is correctly defined, any analysis of market concentration is thoroughly unreliable.

Why competition law matters to health care quality.

Competition law (encompassing both antitrust and consumer protection) is the forgotten stepchild of health care quality. This paper introduces readers to competition law and policy, describes its institutional features and analytic framework, surveys the ways in which competition law has influenced quality-based competition, and outlines some areas in need of further development. Competition law protects the competitive process--not individual competitors. It guides the structural features of the health care system and the conduct of providers as they navigate it. Competition law does not privilege quality over other competitive goals but honors consumers' preferences with respect to trade-offs among quality, price, and other attributes of goods and services.