STI Testing among Medicaid Enrollees Initiating PrEP for HIV Prevention in Six Southern States.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to measure sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing among Medicaid enrollees initiating preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent human immunodeficiency virus. Secondary data are in the form of Medicaid enrollment and claims data in six states in the US South. METHODS: Research partnerships in six states in the US South developed a distributed research network to accomplish study aims. Each state identified all first-time PrEP users in fiscal year 2017-2018 (combined N = 990) and measured the presence of STI testing for chlamydia, syphilis, and gonorrhea through 2019. Each state calculated the percentage of individuals with at least one STI test during 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up periods. RESULTS: The proportion of first-time PrEP users that received an STI test varied by state: 37% to 67% of all of the individuals in each state who initiated PrEP received a test within the first 6 months of PrEP treatment and 50% to 77% received a test within the first 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends STI testing at least every 6 months for PrEP users, our analysis of Medicaid data suggests that STI testing occurs less frequently than recommended in populations at elevated risk of syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia.

Congenital Syphilis in the Medicaid Program: Assessing Challenges and Opportunities Through the Experiences of Seven Southern States.

INTRODUCTION: Rates of congenital syphilis cases are increasing, particularly among lower socioeconomic populations within the southern United States. Medicaid covers a significant portion of these births, which provides an opportunity to improve birth outcomes. This project sought to collect information from key stakeholders to assess facilitators of and barriers to Medicaid funding of prenatal syphilis screening and to provide insight into improving screening and lowering incidence through the Medicaid program. METHODS: Seven southern states (Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee) were identified for this assessment. Researchers conducted a legal and policy analysis for each state to gather information on factors affecting congenital syphilis prevention, identify knowledge gaps, and inform the development of interview guides. Seventeen structured interviews with 29 participants were conducted to gather information on facilitators and barriers to receiving timely prenatal syphilis screening through the Medicaid program. Interview transcripts were analyzed and compared to identify key themes. RESULTS: Barriers to timely prenatal syphilis screening include varied laws among the states on the timing of screening, Medicaid reimbursement policies that may not adequately incentivize testing, Medicaid enrollment issues that affect both enrollment and continuity of care, and lack of clear understanding among providers on recommended testing. CONCLUSION: This work provides insight into systemic issues that may be affecting rates of prenatal syphilis screening and incidence among Medicaid enrollees and others in the U.S. South. To address rising congenital syphilis cases, policymakers should consider requiring third trimester syphilis screening, adopting policies to enhance access to prenatal care, adapting Medicaid payment and incentive models, and promoting collaboration between Medicaid and public health agencies.

Navigating the Intersection of PrEP and Medicaid.

The proposed national PrEP program would serve people who are uninsured as well as those enrolled in Medicaid. In this article, the authors propose a set of recommendations for the proposed program's implementers as well as state Medicaid agencies and Medicaid managed care organizations to ensure PrEP access for people enrolled in Medicaid, addressing gaps without undermining the important role of the Medicaid program in covering and promoting PrEP.

Prenatal Syphilis Screening Among Medicaid Enrollees in 6 Southern States.

INTRODUCTION: The rates of syphilis among pregnant women and infants have increased in recent years, particularly in the U.S. South. Although state policies require prenatal syphilis testing, recent screening rates comparable across Southern states are not known. The purpose of this study is to measure syphilis screening among Medicaid enrollees with delivery in states in the U.S. South. METHODS: A total of 6 state-university research partnerships in the U.S. South developed a distributed research network to analyze Medicaid claims data using a common analytic approach for enrollees with delivery in fiscal years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 (combined N=504,943). In 2020-2021, each state calculated the percentage of enrollees with delivery with a syphilis screen test during the first trimester, third trimester, and at any point during pregnancy. Percentages for those with first-trimester enrollment were compared with the percentages of those who enrolled in Medicaid later in pregnancy. RESULTS: Prenatal syphilis screening during pregnancy ranged from 56% to 91%. Screening was higher among those enrolled in Medicaid during the first trimester than in those enrolled later in pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Despite state laws requiring syphilis screening during pregnancy, screening was much lower than 100%, and states varied in syphilis screening rates among Medicaid enrollees. Findings indicate that access to Medicaid in the first trimester is associated with higher rates of syphilis screening and that efforts to improve access to screening in practice settings are needed.

Recommendations for improving the quality of care through stroke centers and systems: an examination of stroke center identification options: multidisciplinary consensus recommendations from the Advisory Working Group on Stroke Center Identification Options of the American Stroke Association.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The American Stroke Association (ASA) assembled a multidisciplinary group of experts to develop recommendations regarding the potential effectiveness of establishing an identification program for stroke centers and systems. "Identification" refers to the full spectrum of models for assessing and recognizing standards of quality care (self-assessment, verification, certification, and accreditation). A primary consideration is whether stroke center identification might improve patient outcomes. METHODS: In February 2001, ASA, with the support of the Stroke Council's Executive Committee, decided to embark on an evaluation of the potential impact of stroke center identification. HealthPolicy R&D was selected to prepare a comprehensive report. The investigators reported on models outside the area of stroke, ongoing initiatives within the stroke community (such as Operation Stroke), and state and federal activities designed to improve care for stroke patients. The investigators also conducted interviews with thought leaders in the stroke community, representing a diverse sampling of specialties and affiliations. In October 2001, the Advisory Working Group on Stroke Center Identification developed its consensus recommendations. This group included recognized experts in neurology, emergency medicine, emergency medical services, neurological surgery, neurointensive care, vascular disease, and stroke program planning. RESULTS: There are a variety of existing identification programs, generally falling within 1 of 4 categories (self-assessment, verification, certification, and accreditation) along a continuum with respect to intensity and scope of review and consumption of resources. Ten programs were evaluated, including Peer Review Organizations, trauma centers, and new efforts by the National Committee on Quality Assurance and the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations to identify providers and disease management programs. The largest body of literature on clinical outcomes associated with identification programs involves trauma centers. Most studies support that trauma centers and systems lead to improved mortality rates and patient outcomes. The Advisory Working Group felt that comparison to the trauma model was most relevant given the need for urgent evaluation and treatment of stroke. The literature in other areas generally supports the positive impact of identification programs, although patient outcomes data have less often been published. In the leadership interviews, participants generally expressed strong support for pursuing some form of voluntary identification program, although concerns were raised that this effort could meet with some resistance. CONCLUSIONS: Identification of stroke centers and stroke systems competencies is in the best interest of stroke patients in the United States, and ASA should support the development and implementation of such processes. The purpose of a stroke center/systems identification program is to increase the capacity for all hospitals to treat stroke patients according to standards of care, recognizing that levels of involvement will vary according to the resources of hospitals and systems.