Participating doctors' perspectives on the regulation of voluntary assisted dying in Victoria: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the perspectives of doctors involved with voluntary assisted dying in Victoria regarding the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2017 (Vic) and its operation. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Qualitative study; semi-structured interviews with 32 doctors who had participated in the voluntary assisted dying system during its first year of operation (commenced 19 June 2019). Doctors were interviewed during April-July 2020. RESULTS: Three major themes related to problems during the first year of operation of the Act were identified: the statutory prohibition of health professionals initiating discussions with their patients about voluntary assisted dying; the Department of Health and Human Services guidance requirement that all doctor-patient, doctor-pharmacist, and pharmacist-patient interactions be face-to-face; and aspects of implementation, including problems with the voluntary assisted dying online portal, obtaining documentary evidence to establish eligibility, and inadequate resourcing of the Statewide Pharmacy Service. CONCLUSIONS: Doctors reported only limited concerns about the Victorian voluntary assisted dying legislation, but have had some problems with its operation, including implications for the accessibility of voluntary assisted dying to eligible patients. While legislative change may resolve some of these concerns, most can be ameliorated by improving the processes and systems.

The Impact of the Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansion on Vascular Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion increased Medicaid eligibility such that all adults with an income level up to 138% of the federal poverty threshold in 2014 qualified for Medicaid benefits. Prior studies have shown that the ACA Medicaid expansion was associated with increased access to care. The impact of the ACA Medicaid expansion on patients undergoing complex care for major vascular pathology has not been evaluated. METHODS: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database was used to identify patients undergoing care for major vascular pathology in 6 states from 2010 to 2014. The analysis cohort included adult patients between the ages of 18 and 64 years who underwent a nonemergent surgical procedure for an abdominal aortic aneurysm, thoracic aortic aneurysm, carotid artery stenosis, peripheral vascular disease, or chronic kidney disease. Poisson regression was used to determine the incidence rate ratios (IRRs). RESULTS: There were a total of 83,960 patients in the study cohort. Compared with nonexpansion states, inpatient admissions for Medicaid patients with an abdominal or thoracic aneurysm and carotid stenosis diagnosis increased significantly (IRR, 1.20, 1.27, 1.06, respectively; P < 0.05) in states that expanded Medicaid. Vascular-related surgeries increased for carotid endarterectomy, lower extremity revascularization, lower extremity amputation, and arteriovenous fistula in expansion states (IRR, 1.24, 1.10, 1.11, 1.16, respectively; P < 0.05) compared with nonexpansion states. CONCLUSIONS: In states that expanded Medicaid coverage under the ACA, the rate of vascular-related surgeries and admissions for Medicaid patients increased. We conclude that expanding insurance coverage results in enhanced access to vascular surgery.

How Medicaid work requirements could exacerbate the opioid epidemic.

In 2018, the Trump Administration took the unprecedented step of allowing states to impose work requirements as a condition of Medicaid eligibility. States can apply for a demonstration waiver to require Medicaid beneficiaries aged 19-64 who do not meet exemption criteria (e.g., disability, caring for a sick relative) to participate in "community engagement" activities, which include employment, volunteering, and enrollment in a qualifying education or job training program. Debate thus far has focused primarily around the important issue of whether such requirements are legal. Less attention has focused on another serious concern - namely, that work requirements could exacerbate the nation's most urgent public health crisis: the opioid epidemic. Many enrollees with opioid use disorder who are unable to meet states' community engagement criteria will not qualify for an exemption from the work requirements, and risk being dropped from Medicaid enrollment. Refusing health insurance to individuals who are unable to meet work requirements could result in significant losses in coverage among a highly vulnerable population. Implementing new barriers to Medicaid coverage will hinder the effectiveness of massive state and federal investments in improving access to evidence-based addiction treatment.

How Does Perceived Fairness in the Workers' Compensation Claims Process Affect Mental Health Following a Workplace Injury?

Purpose Mental health concerns are common after a workplace injury, particularly amongst those making a compensation claim. Yet there is a lack of research exploring the effect of modifiable elements of the return-to-work process on mental health. The aim of this study is to examine the impact of perceived injustice in the interactions between claim agents and claimants on mental health symptoms in the 12-month following a musculoskeletal (MSK) workplace injury. Methods A cohort of 585 workers compensation claimants in Victoria, Australia were interviewed three times over a 12-month period following a workplace MSK injury. Perceptions of informational and interpersonal justice in claim agent interactions were measured at baseline, and the Kessler Psychological Distress (K6) scale was administered as a measure of mental health at all three timepoints. Path analyses were performed to examine the direct and indirect effects of perceived justice at baseline on concurrent and future mental health, after accounting for confounding variables. Results Each 1-unit increase in perceptions of informational and interpersonal justice, indicating poorer experiences, was associated with an absolute increase of 0.16 and 0.18 in respective K6 mental health score at baseline, indicating poorer mental health on a 5-point scale. In addition, perceived justice indirectly impacted mental health at 6-month and 12-month, through sustained negative impact from baseline as well as increased risk of disagreements between the claim agent and claimant. Conclusions This finding has highlighted the importance of perceived justice in claim agent interactions with claimants in relation to mental health following a work-related MSK injury.

Levels of Employment and Community Engagement among Low-Income Adults: Implications for Medicaid Work Requirements.

CONTEXT: Twenty states are pursuing community engagement requirements ("work requirements") in Medicaid, though legal challenges are ongoing. While most nondisabled low-income individuals work, it is less clear how many engage in the required number of hours of qualifying community engagement activities and what heterogeneity may exist by race/ethnicity, age, and gender. The authors' objective was to estimate current levels of employment and other community engagement activities among potential Medicaid beneficiaries. METHODS: The authors analyzed the US Census Bureau's national time-use survey data for the years 2015 through 2018. Their main sample consisted of nondisabled adults between 19 and 64 years with family incomes less than 138% of the federal poverty level (N = 2,551). FINDINGS: Nationally, low-income adults who might become subject to Medicaid work requirements already spent an average of 30 hours per week on community engagement activities. However, 22% of the low-income population-particularly women, older adults, and those with less education-would not currently satisfy a 20-hour-per-week requirement. CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of potential Medicaid beneficiaries already meet community engagement requirements or are exempt, 22% would not currently satisfy a 20-hour-per-week requirement and therefore could be at risk for losing coverage.

Medicaid Expansion and Work Requirements in Georgia.

Georgia's Section 1115 waiver application, titled "Georgia Pathways to Coverage," seeks to simultaneously expand the state's Medicaid program and condition eligibility on work requirements. Though Section 1115 waivers have become a common vehicle for state Medicaid expansion, the imposition of work requirements is a novel departure. This article explores whether approval of Georgia Pathways to Coverage by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services can withstand judicial review. Recent precedent, beginning with the seminal Stewart v. Azar case, strongly suggests that a legal challenge would be successful on the merits. The features and justifications of Georgia Pathways to Coverage, examined in light of current data on work requirements in entitlement programs, make it likely that approval of the program would be found arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. However, unique aspects of Georgia Pathways to Coverage, as compared with similar state waivers, raise significant hurdles related to constitutional standing requirements and the appropriate judicial remedy.

The Effects of SNAP Work Requirements in Reducing Participation and Benefits From 2013 to 2017.

Objectives. To assess the effects of work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).Methods. We used changes in waivers of work requirements to assess the impact of requiring work on the number of SNAP participants and benefit levels in 2410 US counties from 2013 to 2017 using 2-way fixed effects models.Results. Adoption of work requirements was followed by reductions of 3.0% in total SNAP participation, 4.5% in SNAP households, and 3.8% in SNAP benefit dollars, after controlling for the unemployment, poverty, and Medicaid expansions. Because able-bodied adults without dependents comprise 8% to 9% of all SNAP participants, our findings indicate that work requirements caused more than one third of able-bodied adults without dependents to lose benefits.Conclusions. Expansions of work requirements caused about 600 000 participants to lose SNAP benefits from 2013 to 2017 and caused a reduction of about $2.5 billion in federal SNAP benefits in 2017. The losses occurred rapidly, beginning a few months after work requirements were imposed.Public Health Implications. SNAP work requirements rapidly reduce caseloads and benefits, reducing food and health access. Effects on participation could be similar for work requirements in Medicaid or other programs.

Act now: The effects of the 2008 Spanish disability reform.

The 2008 reform of the Spanish disability system reduced the benefits for individuals who have a short contributory history relative to their age. It also unintentionally introduced an incentive for individuals to apply for disability in the present. We use a lifecycle model and an empirical analysis to understand the overall impact of the reform. Our baseline estimates suggest that men and women who were affected by the reform were 46% and 22% more likely to be on permanent partial disability following the reform, respectively, and 55% and 46% more likely to be on total disability, respectively.

'Inglan is a bitch': hostile NHS charging regulations contravene the ethical principles of the medical profession.

Following the recent condemnation of the National Health Service charging regulations by medical colleges and the UK Faculty of Public Health, we demonstrate that through enactment of this policy, the medical profession is betraying its core ethical principles. Through dissection of the policy using Beauchamp and Childress' framework, a disrespect for autonomy becomes evident in the operationalisation of the charging regulations, just as a disregard for confidentiality was apparent in the data sharing Memorandum of Understanding. Negative consequences of the regulations are documented to highlight their importance for clinical decision makers under the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. Exploration of the principle of justice illuminates the core differentiation between the border-bound duties of the State and borderless duties of the clinician, exposing a fundamental tension.

Healthcare coverage in the US and Japan: A comparison.

Understanding different models of healthcare worldwide and examining the benefits and challenges of those systems can inform potential improvements in the US. This article compares healthcare coverage in the US and Japan with respect to legislation, healthcare system models, eligibility of coverage, financial expenditures, health resources, and quality of care.

Eligibility for Supplemental Service-Disabled Veterans' Insurance. Final rule.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), in this final rule, amends its regulations governing the Service-Disabled Veterans' Insurance (S-DVI) program in order to explain that a person who was granted S-DVI as of the date of death is not eligible for supplemental S-DVI because the insured's total disability did not begin after the date of the insured's application for insurance and while the insurance was in force under premium-paying conditions.

Federal Employees Health Benefits Program: Removal of Eligible and Ineligible Individuals From Existing Enrollments. Final rule.

The United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a final rule amending Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program regulations to provide a process for removal of certain identified individuals who are found not to be eligible as family members from FEHB enrollments. This process would apply to individuals for whom there is a failure to provide adequate documentation of eligibility when requested. This action also amends Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program regulations to allow certain eligible family members to be removed from existing self and family or self plus one enrollments.

Presumption of Herbicide Exposure and Presumption of Disability During Service for Reservists Presumed Exposed to Herbicides. Final rule.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is adopting as final an interim final rule published on June 19, 2015, to amend its adjudication regulation governing individuals presumed to have been exposed to certain herbicides. Specifically, VA expanded the regulation to include an additional group consisting of individuals who performed service in the Air Force or Air Force Reserve under circumstances in which they had regular and repeated contact with C-123 aircraft known to have been used to spray an herbicide agent ("Agent Orange") during the Vietnam era. In addition, the regulation established a presumption that members of this group who later develop an Agent Orange presumptive condition were disabled during the relevant period of service, thus establishing that service as "active military, naval, or air service." The effect of this action is to presume herbicide exposure for these individuals and to create a presumption that the individuals who are presumed exposed to herbicides during reserve service also meet the statutory definition of "veteran" (hereinafter, "veteran status") for VA purposes and eligibility for some VA benefits.

Net Worth, Asset Transfers, and Income Exclusions for Needs-Based Benefits. Final rule.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) amends its regulations governing veterans' eligibility for VA pensions and other needs-based benefit programs. The amended regulations establish new requirements for evaluating net worth and asset transfers for pensions and identify which medical expenses may be deducted from countable income for VA's needs-based benefit programs. The amendments help to ensure the integrity of VA's needs-based benefit programs and the consistent adjudication of pension and parents' dependency and indemnity compensation claims. Lastly, the amendments effectuate: Statutory changes for pension beneficiaries who receive Medicaid-covered nursing home care; a statutory income exclusion for disabled veterans; and longstanding statutory income exclusions for all VA needs-based benefits.

Reimbursement for Emergency Treatment. Interim final rule.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) revises its regulations concerning payment or reimbursement for emergency treatment for non-service-connected conditions at non-VA facilities to implement the requirements of a recent court decision. Specifically, this rulemaking expands eligibility for payment or reimbursement to include veterans who receive partial payment from a health-plan contract for non-VA emergency treatment and establishes a corresponding reimbursement methodology. This rulemaking also expands the eligibility criteria for veterans to receive payment or reimbursement for emergency transportation associated with the emergency treatment, in order to ensure that veterans are adequately covered when emergency transportation is a necessary part of their non-VA emergency treatment.

Will Evaluations of Medicaid 1115 Demonstrations That Restrict Eligibility Tell Policymakers What They Need to Know?

Issue: With thousands in Arkansas losing their Medicaid benefits under the state's work-requirement demonstration, the importance of evaluating such experiments could not be clearer. In Stewart v. Azar, the court concluded that the purpose of Section 1115 demonstrations such as Arkansas's is to promote Medicaid's objective of insuring the poor; evaluations of these demonstrations, as required by law, inform policymakers whether this objective is being achieved. Goal: To examine the quality of evaluation designs for demonstrations that test Medicaid eligibility and coverage restrictions. Methods: Comparison of state evaluation designs against issues identified in Medicaid impact research. Key Findings and Conclusions: Evaluation designs for 1115 demonstrations that restrict Medicaid eligibility and coverage either are lacking or contain flaws that limit their policy utility. No federally approved evaluation designs for Medicaid work and community-engagement demonstrations are yet available, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has not issued evaluation guidance to states. Evaluations thus lag well behind demonstration implementation, meaning important impact information is being lost. Eligibility restrictions attached to some approved Medicaid expansion demonstrations remain unevaluated. Moreover, evaluations are not sustained long enough to measure critical effects; systematic evaluation of communitywide impact is lacking; and comparisons to states with no Medicaid restrictions are missing. Without robust evaluation, the core purpose of Section 1115 is lost.

Medicaid Work Requirements: Will They Help the Unemployed Gain Jobs or Improve Health?

Issue: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved Medicaid work requirement demonstration projects in four states, and other states also have applied. However, the future of these projects has been clouded by legal and policy challenges. Goal: To assess whether state Medicaid work requirement projects are designed for success in promoting employment among unemployed Medicaid beneficiaries. Methods: To examine the design of new work requirement projects, we reviewed the evidence, analyzed the overlap of Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) work requirements, and convened a roundtable of seven experts who have research or implementation experience with work programs for Medicaid and public assistance recipients. Findings and Conclusion: Mandatory work programs would be less effective and efficient than well-administered voluntary programs. Far more people will be subject to Medicaid work requirements than are currently subject to them in SNAP. This surge could overwhelm the limited resources of existing employment training and support programs. Medicaid demonstration projects contribute almost no additional funding to train the unemployed or provide necessary social supports. Medicaid work requirement programs are not well designed to help people get jobs or improve health and are more likely to lead to a loss of health insurance coverage.

Transplant eligibility for patients with affective and psychotic disorders: a review of practices and a call for justice.

BACKGROUND: The scarcity of human organs requires the transplant community to make difficult allocation decisions. This process begins at individual medical centers, where transplant teams decide which patients to place on the transplant waiting list. Each transplant center utilizes its own listing criteria to determine if a patient is eligible for transplantation. These criteria have historically considered preexisting affective and psychotic disorders to be relative or absolute contraindications to transplantation. While attitudes within the field appear to be moving away from this practice, there is no data to confirm that eligibility criteria have changed. MAIN BODY: There are no nationwide guidelines detailing the manner in which affective and psychotic disorders should impact transplant eligibility. Individual transplant centers thus form their own transplant eligibility criteria, resulting in significant inter-institution variability. Data from the 1990s indicates that the majority of transplant programs considered certain psychiatric illnesses, such as active schizophrenia, to be absolute contraindications to transplantation. A review of literature reveals that no comprehensive data has been collected on the topic since that time. Furthermore, the limited data available about current practices suggests that psychiatric illness continues to be viewed as a contraindication to transplantation at some transplant centers. In light of this finding, we review psychiatric literature that examines the impact of affective and psychotic disorders on transplant outcomes and conclude that the presence of these disorders is not an accurate predictor of transplant success. We then discuss the requirements of justice as they relate to the creation of a just organ allocation system. CONCLUSION: We conclude that transplant eligibility criteria that exclude patients with affective and psychotic disorders on the basis of their psychiatric diagnosis alone are unjust. Just listing criteria must incorporate only those factors that have a causative effect on posttransplant morbidity and mortality. Justice also demands that we eliminate current inter-institution practice variations in favor of national transplant eligibility criteria. Given the limited data available about current practices, we call for an updated study investigating the manner in which affect and psychotic disorders impact transplant eligibility determinations.