Building Equitable Mental Health Care for Latino Children: Perspectives from Providers and Communities.

BACKGROUND: The current pediatric mental health crisis has disproportionately impacted Latino youth in the United States (US), as demonstrated by their elevated risks of depression, substance use disorder, and anxiety. Despite this, research suggests Latino youth receive inequitable mental health services. OBJECTIVE: To understand best practices, challenges, and priorities in providing accessible and equitable mental health care for Latino youth from the perspectives of front-line mental health providers and Latino community members. METHODS: A bicultural, bilingual researcher conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 participants with expertise in Latino mental health. Topics included barriers and facilitators to mental health care access and cultural tailoring of treatment for Latino youth. Rapid qualitative analysis was used to identify themes. RESULTS: Four themes were identified: (1) Navigating immigration concerns and acculturation, practitioners should consider immigration-related concerns and be trained to address acculturation-related stressors respectfully; (2) Adapting to the cultural needs and strengths of the communities, cultural humility education can allow providers to engage with both the strengths and needs of Latino families; (3) Engaging Latino caregivers as partners, it is critical to engage with Latino caregivers' cultural perspectives on parenting and mental health collaboratively; and (4) Addressing systemic barriers to promote access, providers must recognize and attempt to alleviate the systemic barriers that limit families from seeking care. CONCLUSIONS: Participants identified several practical strategies to improve the provision of mental health services for Latino children. Future directions, policy and practice implications, and limitations are discussed.

Addressing Housing-Related Social Needs Through Medicaid: Lessons From North Carolina's Healthy Opportunities Pilots Program.

North Carolina Medicaid's Healthy Opportunities Pilots program is the country's first comprehensive program to evaluate the impact of paying community-based organizations to provide eligible Medicaid enrollees with an array of evidence-based services to address four domains of health-related social needs, one of which is housing. Using a mixed-methods approach, we mapped the distribution of severe housing problems and then examined the design and implementation of Healthy Opportunities Pilots housing services in the three program regions. Four cross-cutting implementation and policy themes emerged: accounting for variation in housing resources and needs to address housing insecurity, defining and pricing housing services in Medicaid, engaging diverse stakeholders across sectors to facilitate successful implementation, and developing sustainable financial models for delivery. The lessons learned and actionable insights can help inform the efforts of stakeholders elsewhere, particularly other state Medicaid programs, to design and implement cross-sectoral programs that address housing-related social needs by leveraging multiple policy-based resources. These lessons can also be useful for federal policy makers developing guidance on addressing housing-related needs in Medicaid.

Promoting Latinx health equity through community-engaged policy and practice reforms in North Carolina.

Introduction: The Latinx Advocacy Team & Interdisciplinary Network for COVID-19 (LATIN-19) is a unique multi-sector coalition formed early in the COVID-19 pandemic to address the multi-level health inequities faced by Latinx communities in North Carolina. Methods: We utilized the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) Research Framework to conduct a directed content analysis of 58 LATIN-19 meeting minutes from April 2020 through October 2021. Application of the NIMHD Research Framework facilitated a comprehensive assessment of complex and multidimensional barriers and interventions contributing to Latinx health while centering on community voices and perspectives. Results: Community interventions focused on reducing language barriers and increasing community-level access to social supports while policy interventions focused on increasing services to slow the spread of COVID-19. Discussion: Our study adds to the literature by identifying community-based strategies to ensure the power of communities is accounted for in policy reforms that affect Latinx health outcomes across the U.S. Multisector coalitions, such as LATIN-19, can enable the improved understanding of underlying barriers and embed community priorities into policy solutions to address health inequities.

Systemic Racism Affecting Latinx Population Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond: Perspectives of Latinx Community Health Workers and Community-Based Organization Leaders.

Introduction: The purpose of this study is to identify forms of systemic racism experienced by Latinx communities in North Carolina during the COVID-19 pandemic as identified by Latinx community health workers (CHWs) and community-based organization (CBO) leaders. Methods: We conducted three focus groups in July 2022 (N=16). We performed qualitative analysis of data using an iterative inductive approach of the original language in Dedoose. Results: Four central themes emerged: (1) Access to resources for Latinx individuals; (2) Immediate, transitional, and future fears; (3) Benefits of CHWs; and (4) Lessons learned. Discussion: Institutional and state policies often do not involve community members, such as CHWs and CBO leaders, at the start of the development process, leading to ineffective interventions that perpetuate health disparities and systemic racism. Health Equity Implications: Community-informed policy recommendations can improve alignment of community and policy priorities to create more effective interventions to address systemic racism and promote health equity.

Rethinking how development assistance for health can catalyse progress on primary health care.

Global campaigns to control HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, and vaccine-preventable illnesses showed that large-scale impact can be achieved by using additional international financing to support selected, evidence-based, high-impact investment areas and to catalyse domestic resource mobilisation. Building on this paradigm, we make the case for targeting additional international funding for selected high-impact investments in primary health care. We have identified and costed a set of concrete, evidence-based investments that donors could support, which would be expected to have major impacts at an affordable cost. These investments are in: (1) individuals and communities empowered to engage in health decision making, (2) a new model of people-centred primary care, and (3) next generation community health workers. These three areas would be supported by strengthening two cross-cutting elements of national systems. The first is the digital tools and data that support facility, district, and national managers to improve processes, quality of care, and accountability across primary health care. The second is the educational, training, and supervisory systems needed to improve the quality of care. We estimate that with an additional international investment of between US$1·87 billion in a low-investment scenario and $3·85 billion in a high-investment scenario annually over the next 3 years, the international community could support the scale-up of this evidence-based package of investments in the 59 low-income and middle-income countries that are eligible for external financing from the World Bank Group's International Development Association.

Assessment of Population-Level Disadvantage Indices to Inform Equitable Health Policy.

Policy Points The rapid uptake of disadvantage indices during the pandemic highlights investment in implementing tools that address health equity to inform policy. Existing indices differ in their design, including data elements, social determinants of health domains, and geographic unit of analysis. These differences can lead to stark discrepancies in place-based social risk scores depending on the index utilized. Disadvantage indices are useful tools for identifying geographic patterns of social risk; however, indiscriminate use of indices can have varied policy implications and unintentionally worsen equity. Implementers should consider which indices are suitable for specific communities, objectives, potential interventions, and outcomes of interest. CONTEXT: There has been unprecedented uptake of disadvantage indices such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) to identify place-based patterns of social risk and guide equitable health policy during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, limited evidence around data elements, interoperability, and implementation leaves unanswered questions regarding the utility of indices to prioritize health equity. METHODS: We identified disadvantage indices that were (a) used three or more times from 2018 to 2021, (b) designed using national-level data, and (c) available at the census-tract or block-group level. We used a network visualization to compare social determinants of health (SDOH) domains across indices. We then used geospatial analyses to compare disadvantage profiles across indices and geographic areas. FINDINGS: We identified 14 indices. All incorporated data from public sources, with half using only American Community Survey data (n = 7) and the other half combining multiple sources (n = 7). Indices differed in geographic granularity, with county level (n = 5) and census-tract level (n = 5) being the most common. Most states used the SVI during the pandemic. The SVI, the Area Deprivation Index (ADI), the COVID-19 Community Vulnerability Index (CCVI), and the Child Opportunity Index (COI) met criteria for further analysis. Selected indices shared five indicators (income, poverty, English proficiency, no high school diploma, unemployment) but varied in other metrics and construction method. While mapping of social risk scores in Durham County, North Carolina; Cook County, Illinois; and Orleans Parish, Louisiana, showed differing patterns within the same locations depending on choice of disadvantage index, risk scores across indices showed moderate to high correlation (rs 0.7-1). However, spatial autocorrelation analyses revealed clustering, with discrepant distributions of social risk scores between different indices. CONCLUSIONS: Existing disadvantage indices use varied metrics to represent place-based social risk. Within the same geographic area, different indices can provide differences in social risk values and interpretations, potentially leading to varied public health or policy responses.

Is value-based payment for healthcare feasible under Ghana's National Health Insurance Scheme?

BACKGROUND: Effective payment mechanisms for healthcare are critical to the quality of care and the efficiency and responsiveness of health systems to meet specific population health needs. Since its inception, Ghana's National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) has adopted fee-for-service, diagnostic-related groups and capitation methods, which have contributed to provider reimbursement delays, rising costs and poor quality of care rendered to the scheme's clients. The aim of this study was to explore stakeholder perceptions of the feasibility of value-based payment (VBP) for healthcare in Ghana. Value-based payment refers to a system whereby healthcare providers are paid for the value of services rendered to patients instead of the volume of services. METHODS: This study employed a cross-sectional qualitative design. National-level stakeholders were purposively selected for in-depth interviews. The participants included policy-makers (n = 4), implementers (n = 5), public health insurers (n = 3), public and private healthcare providers (n = 7) and civil society organization officers (n = 1). Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data analysis was performed using both deductive and inductive thematic analysis. The data were analysed using QSR NVivo 12 software. RESULTS: Generally, participants perceived VBP to be feasible if certain supporting systems were in place and potential implementation constraints were addressed. Although the concept of VBP was widely accepted, study participants reported that efficient resource management, provider motivation incentives and community empowerment were required to align VBP to the Ghanaian context. Weak electronic information systems and underdeveloped healthcare infrastructure were seen as challenges to the integration of VBP into the Ghanaian health system. Therefore, improvement of existing systems beyond healthcare, including public education, politics, data, finance, regulation, planning, infrastructure and stakeholder attitudes towards VBP, will affect the overall feasibility of VBP in Ghana. CONCLUSION: Value-based payment could be a feasible policy option for the NHIS in Ghana if potential implementation challenges such as limited financial and human resources and underdeveloped health system infrastructure are addressed. Governmental support and provider capacity-building are therefore essential for VBP implementation in Ghana. Future feasibility and acceptability studies will need to consider community and patient perspectives.

Reinforcing locally led solutions for universal health coverage: a logic model with applications in Benin, Namibia and Uganda.

Development assistance for health programmes is often characterised as donor-led models with minimal country ownership and limited sustainability. This article presents new ways for low-income and middle-income countries to gain more control of their development assistance programming as they move towards universal health coverage (UHC). We base our findings on the experience of the African Collaborative for Health Financing Solutions (ACS), an innovative US Agency for International Development-funded project. The ACS project stems from the premise that the global health community can more effectively support UHC processes in countries if development partners change three long-standing paradigms: (1) time-limited projects to enhancing long-lasting processes, (2) fly-in/fly-out development support to leveraging and strengthening local and regional expertise and (3) static knowledge creation to supporting practical and co-developed resources that enhance learning and capture implementation experience. We assume that development partners can facilitate progress towards UHC if interventions follow five action steps, including (1) align to country demand, (2) provide evidence-based and tailored health financing technical support, (3) respond to knowledge and learnings throughout activity design and implementation, (4) foster multi-stakeholder collaboration and ownership and (5) strengthen accountability mechanisms. Since 2017, the ACS project has applied these five action steps in its implementing countries, including Benin, Namibia and Uganda. This article shares with the global health community preliminary achievements of implementing a unique, challenging but promising experience.

Improving Care And Lowering Costs: Evidence And Lessons From A Global Analysis Of Accountable Care Reforms.

Policy makers and providers are under increasing pressure to find innovative approaches to achieving better health outcomes as efficiently as possible. Accountable care, which holds providers accountable for results rather than specific services, is emerging in many countries to support such care innovations. However, these reforms are challenging and complex to implement, requiring significant policy and delivery changes. Despite global interest, the evidence on how to implement accountable care successfully remains limited. To improve the evidence base and increase the likelihood of success, we applied a comprehensive framework for assessing accountable care implementation to three promising reforms outside the United States. The framework relates accountable care policy reforms to the competencies of health care organizations and their health policy environments to facilitate qualitative comparisons of innovations and factors that influence success. We present emerging lessons to guide future implementation and evaluation of accountable care reforms to improve access to and the quality and affordability of care.

Accountable Care Reforms Improve Women's And Children's Health In Nepal.

Over the past decade the Ministry of Health of Nepal and the nonprofit Possible have partnered to deliver primary and secondary health care via a public-private partnership. We applied an accountable care framework that we previously developed to describe the delivery of their integrated reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health services in the Achham district in rural Nepal. In a prospective pre-post study, examining pregnancies at baseline and 541 pregnancies in follow-up over the course of eighteen months, we found an improvement in population-level indicators linked to reducing maternal and infant mortality: receipt of four antenatal care visits (83 percent to 90 percent), institutional birth rate (81 percent to 93 percent), and the prevalence of postpartum contraception (19 percent to 47 percent). The intervention cost $3.40 per capita (at the population level) and $185 total per pregnant woman who received services. This study provides new analysis and evidence on the implementation of innovative care and financing models in resource-limited settings.

Innovations In Diabetes Care Around the World: Case Studies Of Care Transformation Through Accountable Care Reforms.

The rising prevalence, health burden, and cost of chronic diseases such as diabetes have accelerated global interest in innovative care models that use approaches such as community-based care and information technology to improve or transform disease prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. Although evidence on the effectiveness of innovative care models is emerging, scaling up or extending these models beyond their original setting has been difficult. We developed a framework to highlight policy barriers-institutional, regulatory, and financial-to the diffusion of transformative innovations in diabetes care. The framework builds on accountable care principles that support higher-value care, or better patient-level outcomes at lower cost. We applied this framework to three case studies from the United States, Mexico, and India to describe how innovators and policy leaders have addressed barriers, with a focus on important financing barriers to provider and consumer payment. The lessons have implications for policy reform to promote innovation through new funding approaches, institutional reforms, and performance measures with the goal of addressing the growing burdens of diabetes and other chronic diseases.

Oncology payment reform to achieve real health care reform.

Cancer care is transforming, moving toward increasingly personalized treatment with the potential to save and improve many more lives. Many oncologists and policymakers view current fee-for-service payments as an obstacle to providing more efficient, high-quality cancer care. However, payment reforms create new uncertainties for oncologists and may be challenging to implement. In this article, we illustrate how accountable care payment reforms that directly align payments with quality and cost measures are being implemented and the opportunities and challenges they present. These payment models provide more flexibility to oncologists and other providers to give patients the personalized care they need, along with more accountability for demonstrating quality improvements and overall cost or cost growth reductions. Such payment reforms increase the importance of person-level quality and cost measures as well as data analysis to improve measured performance. We describe key features of quality and cost measures needed to support accountable care payment reforms in oncology. Finally, we propose policy recommendations to move incrementally but fundamentally to payment systems that support higher-value care in oncology.

Accountable care around the world: a framework to guide reform strategies.

Accountable care--a way to align health care payments with patient-focused reform goals--is currently being pursued in the United States, but its principles are also being applied in many other countries. In this article we review experiences with such reforms to offer a globally applicable definition of an accountable care system and propose a conceptual framework for characterizing and assessing accountable care reforms. The framework consists of five components: population, outcomes, metrics and learning, payments and incentives, and coordinated delivery. We describe how the framework applies to accountable care reforms that are already being implemented in Spain and Singapore. We also describe how it can be used to map progress through increasingly sophisticated levels of reforms. We recommend that policy makers pursuing accountable care reforms emphasize the following steps: highlight population health and wellness instead of just treating illness; pay for outcomes instead of activities; create a more favorable environment for collaboration and coordinated care; and promote interoperable data systems.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of an additional birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine to prevent perinatal transmission in a medical setting in Mozambique.

This study is the first to assess the cost-effectiveness of an additional birth dose of Hepatitis B (HBV) vaccine administered by professional birth attendants in medical settings in a sub-Saharan country (Mozambique). The WHO has recommended the birth dose to prevent perinatal transmission of HBV. A Markov model was constructed to analyse the costs and effects associated with avoiding perinatal transmission of HBV through a birth dose vaccination in addition to the existing vaccination schedule in Mozambique. The comparator intervention is the existing vaccination schedule administered at 6-10-14 weeks. The analysis was conducted for the birth cohort of 2008. As the context is a low-income setting our main outcome measure was disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted. Transition probabilities, costs and effects were estimated based on a thorough literature review. One- to three-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to account for uncertainty in the data. We found an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the additional birth dose of 250.95 US$ per DALY averted. Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of 441 US$, which was the GDP per capita for Mozambique in 2008, the findings show the additional birth dose to be highly cost-effective. However, one-way sensitivity analysis reveals that the outcome changes with parameter variation. To give unambiguous recommendations on introducing the birth dose in Mozambique, more information on the parameters that render the birth dose cost-ineffective in sensitivity analysis is needed. Those parameters are 'vaccine effectiveness', 'prevalence of HBV among mothers', 'the transition probability from chronic HBV to liver cancer' and 'the risk of perinatal transmission for mothers negative for the Hepatitis B "e" antigen (HBeAg)'. Parameter variation (one-way) showed the ICER to lie between 72 US$/DALY averted and 683 US$/DALY averted.