Assessing the effect of adverse economic events on severity of hunger among food pantry clients.

This study assessed relationship between adverse economic events (AEE) and hunger level (i.e., little to no, moderate, severe). A cross-sectional survey was conducted from June to August 2018 in 10 food pantries with 616 food pantry users. Hunger level was assessed by the Household Hunger Scale. AEE were evaluated over the past 3 months. Participants (60.55%) experienced unexpected or increased medical expenses (17.69%), job loss (13.64%), pay reduction (11.85%), and death of a family member (9.09%). Pay reduction (OR = 1.87, 95% CI: 1.12, 3.14) and increased debt (OR = 2.71, 95% CI: 1.92, 3.84) were associated with moderate hunger; death of a family member (OR = 2.43, 95% CI: 1.21, 4.90), pay reduction (OR = 2.95, 95% CI: 1.24, 7.04), and increased debt (OR = 3.46, 95% CI: 1.98, 6.04) were associated with severe hunger. Awareness of AEE can inform public health programs and policies for people in need of additional resources, which is essential in times of increased economic instability.

Socio-demographic factors associated with hunger among food pantry users in Eastern Massachusetts.

To assess the determinants of hunger among food pantry users, the present study used a cross-sectional survey that included a modified Household Hunger Scale to quantify hunger. Mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to assess the relationship between hunger categories and various household socio-demographic and economic characteristics, such as age, race, household size, marital status and experience of any economic hardship. The survey was administered to food pantry users from June 2018 to August 2018 at various food pantries across Eastern Massachusetts with 611 food pantry users completing the questionnaire at any of the 10 food pantry sites. One-fifth (20⋅13 %) of food pantry users experienced moderate hunger and 19⋅14 % experienced severe hunger. Food pantry users who were single, divorced or separated; had less than a high school education; working part-time, unemployed or retired; or, who earned incomes less than $1000 per month were most likely to experience severe or moderate hunger. Pantry users who experienced any economic hardship had 4⋅78 the adjusted odds of severe hunger (95 % CI 2⋅49, 9⋅19), which was much larger than the odds of moderate hunger (AOR 1⋅95; 95 % CI 1⋅10, 3⋅48). Younger age and participation in WIC (AOR 0⋅20; 95 % CI 0⋅05-0⋅78) and SNAP (AOR 0⋅53; 95 % CI 0⋅32-0⋅88) were protective against severe hunger. The present study illustrates factors affecting hunger in food pantry users, which can help inform public health programmes and policies for people in need of additional resources. This is essential particularly in times of increasing economic hardships recently exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

How Do Medicaid Agencies Improve Substance Use Treatment Benefits? Lessons from Three States' 1115 Waiver Experiences.

CONTEXT: In 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) urged state Medicaid programs to use 1115 waiver demonstrations to expand substance use treatment benefits. We analyzed four critical points in states' decision-making processes before expanding benefits. METHODS: We conducted qualitative cross-case comparison of three states that were early adopters of the 1115 waiver request. We conducted 44 interviews with key informants from CMS, Medicaid, and other state agencies, providers, and managed care organizations. FINDINGS: Policy makers expanded substance use treatment in response to "fragmented" care systems and unsustainable funding streams. Medicaid staff had mixed preferences for implementing new benefits via 1115 waivers or state plan amendments. The 1115 waiver process enabled states to provide coverage for residential benefits, but state plan amendments made other services permanent parts of the benefit. Medicaid agencies relied on interorganizational networks to identify evidence-based practices. Medicaid staff secured legislative support for reform by focusing on program integrity concerns and downstream effects of substance use rather than Medicaid beneficiaries' needs. CONCLUSIONS: Decision-making processes were influenced by Medicaid agency characteristics and interorganizational partnerships, not federal executive branch influence. Lessons from early-adopter states provide a road map for other state Medicaid agencies considering similar reform.

Translating Medicaid policy into practice: policy implementation strategies from three US states' experiences enhancing substance use disorder treatment.

BACKGROUND: Despite the important upstream impact policy has on population health outcomes, few studies in implementation science in health have examined implementation processes and strategies used to translate state and federal policies into accessible services in the community. This study examines the policy implementation strategies and experiences of Medicaid programs in three US states that responded to a federal prompt to improve access to evidence-based practice (EBP) substance use disorder (SUD) treatment. METHODS: Three US state Medicaid programs implementing American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) Criteria-driven SUD services under Section 1115 waiver authority were used as cases. We conducted 44 semi-structured interviews with Medicaid staff, providers and health systems partners in California, Virginia, and West Virginia. Interviews were triangulated with document review of state readiness and implementation plans. The Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment Framework (EPIS) guided qualitative theme analysis. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change and Specify It criteria were used to create a taxonomy of policy implementation strategies used by policymakers to promote providers' uptake of statewide EBP SUD care continuums. RESULTS: Four themes describe states' experiences and outcomes implementing a complex EBP SUD treatment policy directive: (1) Medicaid agencies adapted their inner/outer contexts to align with EBPs and adapted EBPs to fit their local context; (2) enhanced financial reimbursement arrangements were inadequate bridging factors to achieve statewide adoption of new SUD services; (3) despite trainings, service providers and managed care organizations demonstrated poor fidelity to the ASAM Criteria; and (4) successful policy adoption at the state level did not guarantee service providers' uptake of EBPs. States used 29 implementation strategies to implement EBP SUD care continuums. Implementation strategies were used in the Exploration (n=6), Preparation (n=10), Implementation (n=19), and Sustainment (n=6) phases, and primarily focused on developing stakeholder interrelationships, evaluative and iterative approaches, and financing. CONCLUSIONS: This study enhances our understanding of statewide policy implementation outcomes in low-resource, public healthcare settings. Themes highlight the need for additional pre-implementation and sustainment focused implementation strategies. The taxonomy of detailed policy implementation strategies employed by policymakers across states should be tested in future policy implementation research.