Assessing the Role of State and Local Public Health in Outreach and Enrollment for Expanded Coverage: A Case Study on Boston and Massachusetts.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) laid the groundwork for a substantial increase in the number of people who have access to health insurance through Medicaid expansion or health insurance marketplaces. During the first open-enrollment season, states used a variety of strategies to reach out to and enroll newly eligible people. Typically, they used federal and state funding to develop navigator programs. Program design differed by location, and, although many stakeholders were involved in these efforts, state and local health departments (LHDs) were, and remain, a relatively untapped resource. This article is one in a series designed to highlight innovative models and best practices that leverage LHD involvement in ACA outreach and enrollment and to facilitate knowledge transfer to other geographic regions looking to leverage the full range of roles for LHDs in ACA outreach and enrollment. Each case study was designed to capture nuanced differences in how health departments support these efforts in their communities, identify facilitators and barriers to these approaches, and develop lessons learned from these activities. These studies identify compelling models for how state and local health departments can implement similar activities in their own communities. Further, they provide guidance and insight into the role LHDs can play now, and help redefine that role in the future, as states continue to enroll residents in health insurance coverage moving forward. This article focuses on a case study on Boston and Massachusetts.

US Public Sexually Transmitted Disease Clinical Services in an Era of Declining Public Health Funding: 2013-14.

BACKGROUND: We examined the infrastructure for US public sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinical services. METHODS: In 2013 to 2014, we surveyed 331 of 1225 local health departments (LHDs) who either reported providing STD testing/treatment in the 2010 National Profile of Local Health Departments survey or were the 50 local areas with the highest STD cases or rates. The sample was stratified by jurisdiction population size. We examined the primary referral clinics for STDs, the services offered and the impact of budget cuts (limited to government funding only). Data were analyzed using SAS, and analyses were weighted for nonresponse. RESULTS: Twenty-two percent of LHDs cited a specialty STD clinic as their primary referral for STD services; this increased to 53.5% of LHDs when combination STD-family planning clinics were included. The majority of LHDs (62.8%) referred to clinics providing same-day services. Sexually transmitted disease clinics more frequently offered extragenital testing for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea (74.7%) and gonorrhea culture (68.5%) than other clinics (52.9%, 46.2%, respectively; P < 0.05). The majority of LHDs (61.5%) reported recent budget cuts. Of those with decreased budgets, the most common impacts were fewer clinic hours (42.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 24.4-61.2), reduced routine screening (40.2%; 95% CI, 21.7-58.8) and reductions in partner services (42.1%; 95% CI, 23.6-60.7). One quarter of those with reduced STD budgets increased fees or copays for clients. CONCLUSIONS: Findings demonstrate gaps and reductions in US public STD services including clinical services that play an important role in reducing disease transmission. Furthermore, STD clinics tended to offer more specialized STD services than other public clinics.