A dataset of geocoded Medicaid office locations in the United States.

Medicaid is the largest health insurance program in the United States, covering more than 86 million Americans as of early 2023, and is key for progress towards health equity. Although policy changes like Medicaid expansion have significantly expanded the number of people who are eligible for Medicaid, the administrative burdens of enrolling in and renewing coverage can be substantial. Although many applications are now submitted online, physical access to Medicaid offices still plays a critical role in understanding eligibility, getting help in applying, and navigating required documentation for both initial enrollment and redetermination of eligibility. However, as more government functions have moved online, in-person office locations and/or staff may have been cut to reduce costs, and gentrification has shifted where minoritized, marginalized, and/or low-income populations live, it is unclear if the key local connection point between residents and Medicaid has been maintained. To our knowledge, no single source of Medicaid office locations has been assembled and made available for research purposes. Our objective was to identify and geocode all public-facing Medicaid offices in the United States, which can then be paired with other spatial data (e.g., demographics, Medicaid participation, health care use, health outcomes) to explore policy-relevant research questions. We identified Medicaid office addresses in all 50 states and the District of Columbia by searching state government websites (e.g., Department of Health and Human Services or analogous state agency). Our corpus of Medicaid office addresses was then geocoded using the Census Geocoder with unresolved addresses investigated and/or manually geocoded using Google Maps. After deduplication (e.g., where multiple counties share a single office) and removal of mailing addresses (e.g., PO Boxes), our final dataset includes 3026 Medicaid office locations.

Economic precarity, loneliness, and suicidal ideation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The US population faced stressors associated with suicide brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the relationship between stressors and suicidal ideation in the context of the pandemic may inform policies and programs to prevent suicidality and suicide. We compared suicidal ideation between two cross-sectional, nationally representative surveys of adults in the United States: the 2017-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the 2020 COVID-19 and Life Stressors Impact on Mental Health and Well-being (CLIMB) study (conducted March 31 to April 13). We estimated the association between stressors and suicidal ideation in bivariable and multivariable Poisson regression models with robust variance to generate unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios (PR and aPR). Suicidal ideation increased from 3.4% in the 2017-2018 NHANES to 16.3% in the 2020 CLIMB survey, and from 5.8% to 26.4% among participants in low-income households. In the multivariable model, difficulty paying rent (aPR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.2-2.1) and feeling alone (aPR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.5-2.4) were associated with suicidal ideation but job loss was not (aPR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.6 to 1.2). Suicidal ideation increased by 12.9 percentage points and was almost 4.8 times higher during the COVID-19 pandemic. Suicidal ideation was more prevalent among people facing difficulty paying rent (31.5%), job loss (24.1%), and loneliness (25.1%), with each stressor associated with suicidal ideation in bivariable models. Difficulty paying rent and loneliness were most associated with suicidal ideation. Policies and programs to support people experiencing economic precarity and loneliness may contribute to suicide prevention.

A database of US state policies to mitigate COVID-19 and its economic consequences.

BACKGROUND: Since COVID-19 first appeared in the United States (US) in January 2020, US states have pursued a wide range of policies to mitigate the spread of the virus and its economic ramifications. Without unified federal guidance, states have been the front lines of the policy response. MAIN TEXT: We created the COVID-19 US State Policy (CUSP) database ( https://statepolicies.com/ ) to document the dates and components of economic relief and public health measures issued at the state level in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Documented interventions included school and business closures, face mask mandates, directives on vaccine eligibility, eviction moratoria, and expanded unemployment insurance benefits. By providing continually updated information, CUSP was designed to inform rapid-response, policy-relevant research in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and has been widely used to investigate the impact of state policies on population health and health equity. This paper introduces the CUSP database and highlights how it is already informing the COVID-19 pandemic response in the US. CONCLUSION: CUSP is the most comprehensive publicly available policy database of health, social, and economic policies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the US. CUSP documents widespread variation in state policy decisions and implementation dates across the US and serves as a freely available and valuable resource to policymakers and researchers.

Disparities Made Invisible: Gaps in COVID-19 Data for American Indian and Alaska Native Populations.

Introduction: Complete COVID-19 data for American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) populations are critical to equitable pandemic response. Methods: We used the COVID-19 U.S. State Policy database to document gaps in COVID-19 data reporting for AI/AN people. Results: Sixty-four percent of states do not report AI/AN data for at least one COVID-19 health metric: cases, hospitalizations, deaths, or vaccinations. Discussion: The lack of AI/AN-specific data masks the disproportionate burden of COVID-19 and presents challenges to COVID-19 prevention, policy implementation, and health equity. Conclusions: Public-facing data disaggregated by race may facilitate rapid response COVID-19 research and policymaking to support AI/AN communities.

Provider views on rapid diagnostic tests and antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections: A mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are often inappropriately treated with antibiotics. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) have been developed with the aim of improving antibiotic prescribing but uptake remains low. The aim of this study was to examine provider knowledge, attitudes and behaviors regarding RDT use and their relationship to antibiotic prescribing decisions across multiple clinical departments in an urban safety-net hospital. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods sequential explanatory study. Providers with prescribing authority (attending physicians, nurse practitioners and physician assistants) who had at least 20 RTI encounters from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2018. Eighty-five providers completed surveys and 16 participated in interviews. We conducted electronic surveys via RedCap from April to July 2019, followed by semi-structured individual interviews from October to December 2019, to ascertain knowledge, attitudes and behaviors related to RDT use and antibiotic prescribing. RESULTS: Survey findings indicated that providers felt knowledgeable about antibiotic prescribing guidelines. They reported high familiarity with the rapid streptococcus and rapid influenza tests. Familiarity with comprehensive respiratory panel PCR (RPP-respiratory panel PCR) and procalcitonin differed by clinical department. Qualitative interviews identified four main themes: providers trust their clinical judgment more than rapid test results; patient-provider relationships play an important role in prescribing decisions; there is patient demand for antibiotics and providers employ different strategies to address the demand and providers do not believe RDTs are implemented with sufficient education or evidence for clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Prescribers are knowledgeable about prescribing guidelines but often rely on clinical judgement to make final decisions. The utility of RDTs is specific to the type of RDT and the clinical department. Given the low familiarity and clinical utility of RPP and procalcitonin, providers may require additional education and these tests may need to be implemented differently based on clinical department.