Experiences of health care services among people with cognitive disabilities and mental health conditions.

BACKGROUND: People with cognitive disabilities such as intellectual and developmental disabilities face significant barriers to accessing high-quality health care services. Barriers may be exacerbated for those with co-occurring mental health conditions. OBJECTIVE: This study compares patient experiences of health care services between adults with and without cognitive disabilities and, among people with a cognitive disability, those with and without co-occurring mental health conditions. METHODS: Cross-sectional analyses were conducted using 2021 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data, a national U.S. survey, to examine differences in Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems measures. RESULTS: Adults with cognitive disabilities reported lower satisfaction with health care services compared to the general population (7.62 (95% confidence interval (CI): 7.41-7.83) vs. 8.33 (95% CI: 8.29-8.38) on scale from 0 to 10). Adults with cognitive disabilities were less likely to report that providers listened carefully to them (odds ratio (OR): 0.55, 95% CI: 0.42-0.71), explained things in a way that was easy to understand (OR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.35-0.66), showed respect for what they had to say (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.29-0.51), spent enough time with them (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.40-0.69), or gave advice that was easy to understand (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.28-0.58) compared to the general population. Among adults with cognitive disabilities, there were no differences based on co-occurring mental health conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with cognitive disabilities report lower satisfaction with health care services driven by worse experiences with the health care system. Policies to increase provider capacity to support this population should be prioritized.

Association of cannabis use with patient-reported pain measures among adults with chronic pain in US states with medical cannabis programs.

INTRODUCTION: Most Americans live in a state that has legalized cannabis as a medical treatment for pain, but it is unclear how chronic pain intensity relates to cannabis use. Our objective was to examine the association between patient-reported pain measures and cannabis among adults with chronic pain. METHODS: This cross-sectional study of a representative sample of adults reporting chronic non-cancer pain in 36 states and DC with active medical cannabis programs from March to April 2022 assessed cannabis use for chronic pain, categorized as active (within 30 days), past (>31 days), or never use (referent). Measures were pain intensity (primary) and interference, Widespread Pain Index, and number of chronic pain diagnoses. RESULTS: Among 1628 participants (57% female, 69% white), 352 (22%) actively used cannabis to treat chronic pain, 137 (8%) reported past cannabis use, and 1139 (70%) never used cannabis. In adjusted models, active cannabis use was associated with higher scores for pain intensity (score difference 1.03, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.02) and pain interference (score difference 1.82, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.65) compared with never use. Persons who actively used cannabis had higher Widespread Pain Index scores (score difference 0.56, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.86) and more chronic pain diagnoses (difference 0.45, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.83). CONCLUSION: People with chronic non-cancer pain who used cannabis for pain reported non-clinically meaningful worse pain measures and greater burden of chronic pain conditions than their counterparts who never used cannabis. Alternatively, those with worse pain and greater burden of pain appear more likely to use cannabis.

Identifying Optimal Methods for Addressing Confounding Bias When Estimating the Effects of State-level Policies.

BACKGROUND: Policy evaluation studies that assess how state-level policies affect health-related outcomes are foundational to health and social policy research. The relative ability of newer analytic methods to address confounding, a key source of bias in observational studies, has not been closely examined. METHODS: We conducted a simulation study to examine how differing magnitudes of confounding affected the performance of 4 methods used for policy evaluations: (1) the two-way fixed effects difference-in-differences model; (2) a 1-period lagged autoregressive model; (3) augmented synthetic control method; and (4) the doubly robust difference-in-differences approach with multiple time periods from Callaway-Sant'Anna. We simulated our data to have staggered policy adoption and multiple confounding scenarios (i.e., varying the magnitude and nature of confounding relationships). RESULTS: Bias increased for each method: (1) as confounding magnitude increases; (2) when confounding is generated with respect to prior outcome trends (rather than levels), and (3) when confounding associations are nonlinear (rather than linear). The autoregressive model and augmented synthetic control method had notably lower root mean squared error than the two-way fixed effects and Callaway-Sant'Anna approaches for all scenarios; the exception is nonlinear confounding by prior trends, where Callaway-Sant'Anna excels. Coverage rates were unreasonably high for the augmented synthetic control method (e.g., 100%), reflecting large model-based standard errors and wide confidence intervals in practice. CONCLUSIONS: In our simulation study, no single method consistently outperformed the others, but a researcher's toolkit should include all methodologic options. Our simulations and associated R package can help researchers choose the most appropriate approach for their data.

Use of Cannabis and Other Pain Treatments Among Adults With Chronic Pain in US States With Medical Cannabis Programs.

This cross-sectional study uses a survey to estimate use of cannabis and other pain treatments among adults with chronic pain in areas with medical cannabis programs in 36 US states and Washington, DC.

Age-of-consent requirements and adolescent HIV testing in low-and middle-income countries: multinational insights from 51 population-based surveys.

BACKGROUND: Pervasive social and structural barriers-including national policies-inhibit HIV testing uptake among priority populations, including adolescents. We assessed the relationship between age-of-consent policies for HIV testing and adolescent HIV testing coverage in 51 low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: We pooled data from household surveys (2010-2020) and calculated the weighted country-level prevalence of lifetime HIV testing separately for adolescent girls and boys (ages 15-19). We then abstracted age-of-consent requirements for HIV testing across countries. Using multivariable linear regression, we estimated the average difference in national HIV testing coverage estimates for adolescent girls and boys by age-of-consent restrictions for HIV testing. RESULTS: National HIV testing coverage estimates ranged from 0.7% to 72.5% among girls (median: 18.0%) and 0% to 73.2% among boys (median: 7.5%) in Pakistan and Lesotho, respectively. In adjusted models, HIV testing coverage in countries requiring parental consent for individuals <18 years was, on average, 9.4 percentage-points (pp) lower (95% confidence interval [95%CI] -17.9pp to -0.9pp) among girls and 9.3pp lower (95%CI: -17.3pp to -1.2pp) among boys, relative to countries with less restrictive policies (age-of-consent: ≤16 years). Compared to countries with less restrictive (age-of-consent: ≤14 years) policies, HIV testing prevalence was significantly lower among girls (ß -10.5pp, 95%CI: -19.7pp to -1.3pp) and boys (ß -10.5pp, 95%CI -19.2pp to -1.8pp) in countries with more restrictive (age-of-consent: 18 years) parental consent requirements. CONCLUSIONS: Age-of-consent policies are persistent obstacles to adolescent HIV testing. Repealing parental consent requirements for HIV testing is needed to expand coverage and accelerate progress towards global HIV treatment and prevention targets.

Effects of Opioid Prescribing Cap Laws on Opioid and Other Pain Treatments Among Persons with Chronic Pain.

BACKGROUND: Many states have adopted laws that limit the amount or duration of opioid prescriptions. These limits often focus on prescriptions for acute pain, but there may be unintended consequences for those diagnosed with chronic pain, including reduced opioid prescribing without substitution of appropriate non-opioid treatments. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of state opioid prescribing cap laws on opioid and non-opioid treatment among those diagnosed with chronic pain. DESIGN: We used a difference-in-differences approach that accounts for staggered policy adoption. Treated states included 32 states that implemented a prescribing cap law between 2017 and 2019. POPULATION: A total of 480,856 adults in the USA who were continuously enrolled in medical and pharmacy coverage from 2013 to 2019 and diagnosed with a chronic pain condition between 2013 and 2016. MAIN MEASURES: Among individuals with chronic pain in each state: proportion with at least one opioid prescription and with prescriptions of a specific duration or dose, average number of opioid prescriptions, average opioid prescription duration and dose, proportion with at least one non-opioid chronic pain prescription, average number of such prescriptions, proportion with at least one chronic pain procedure, and average number of such procedures. KEY RESULTS: State laws limiting opioid prescriptions were not associated with changes in opioid prescribing, non-opioid medication prescribing, or non-opioid chronic pain procedures among patients with chronic pain diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: These findings do not support an association between state opioid prescribing cap laws and changes in the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain.

National support for gun policies among U.S. adults in 2019 and 2021.

Gun-related deaths and gun purchases were at record highs in 2020. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, public protests against police violence, and a tense political environment, which may influence policy preferences, we aimed to understand the current state of support for gun policies in the U.S. We fielded a national public opinion survey in January 2019 and January 2021 using an online panel to measure support for 34 gun policies among U.S. adults. We compared support over time, by gun ownership status, and by political party affiliation. Most respondents supported 33 of the 34 gun regulations studied. Support for seven restrictive policies declined from 2019 to 2021, driven by reduced support among non-gun owners. Support declined for three permissive policies: allowing legal gun carriers to bring guns onto college campuses or K-12 schools and stand your ground laws. Public support for gun-related policies decreased from 2019 to 2021, driven by decreased support among Republicans and non-gun owners.

National support for gun policies among U.S. adults in 2019 and 2021.

Gun-related deaths and gun purchases were at record highs in 2020. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, public protests against police violence, and a tense political environment, which may influence policy preferences, we aimed to understand the current state of support for gun policies in the U.S. We fielded a national public opinion survey in January 2019 and January 2021 using an online panel to measure support for 34 gun policies among U.S. adults. We compared support over time, by gun ownership status, and by political party affiliation. Most respondents supported 33 of the 34 gun regulations studied. Support for seven restrictive policies declined from 2019 to 2021, driven by reduced support among non-gun owners. Support declined for three permissive policies: allowing legal gun carriers to bring guns onto college campuses or K-12 schools and stand your ground laws. Public support for gun-related policies decreased from 2019 to 2021, driven by decreased support among Republicans and non-gun owners.

State prescribing cap laws' association with opioid analgesic prescribing and opioid overdose.

INTRODUCTION: In response to the role of opioid prescribing in the U.S. opioid crisis, states have enacted laws intended to curb high risk opioid prescribing practices. This study assessed the effects of state prescribing cap laws that limit the dose and/or duration of dispensed opioid prescriptions on opioid prescribing patterns and opioid overdose. METHODS: We identified 1,414,908 adults from a large U.S. administrative insurance claims database. Treatment states included 32 states that implemented a prescribing cap law between 2017 and 2019. Comparison states included 16 states and DC without a prescribing cap law by 2019. A difference-in-differences approach with staggered policy adoption was used to assess effects of these laws on opioid analgesic prescribing and opioid overdose. RESULTS: State opioid prescribing cap laws were not associated with changes in the proportion of people receiving opioid analgesic prescriptions, the dose or duration of opioid prescriptions, or opioid overdose. States with laws that imposed days' supply limits only versus days' supply and dosage limits, as well as with specific law provisions also showed no association with opioid prescribing or opioid overdose outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: State opioid prescribing cap laws did not appear to impact outcomes related to opioid analgesic prescribing or opioid overdose. These findings are potentially due to the limited scope of these laws, which often apply only to a subset of opioid prescriptions and include professional judgment exemptions.

Association Between State Opioid Prescribing Cap Laws and Receipt of Opioid Prescriptions Among Children and Adolescents.

Importance: High-dose and long-duration opioid prescriptions remain relatively common among children and adolescents, but there is insufficient research on the association of state laws limiting the dose and/or duration of opioid prescriptions (referred to as opioid prescribing cap laws) with opioid prescribing for this group. Objective: To examine the association between state opioid prescribing cap laws and the receipt of opioid prescriptions among children and adolescents. Design Setting and Participants: This repeated cross-sectional study used a difference-in-differences approach accounting for staggered policy adoption to assess the association of state opioid prescribing cap laws in the US from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2019, with receipt of opioid prescriptions among children and adolescents. Analyses were conducted between March 22 and December 15, 2021. Data were obtained from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse, a national commercial insurance claims database. The analysis included 482 118 commercially insured children and adolescents aged 0 to 17 years with full calendar-year continuous insurance enrollment between 2013 and 2019. Individuals were included for every year in which they were continuously enrolled; they did not need to be enrolled for the entire 7-year study period. Those with any cancer diagnosis were excluded from analysis. Exposure: Implementation of a state opioid prescribing cap law between January 1, 2017, and July 1, 2019. This date range allowed analysis of the same number years for both pre-cap and post-cap data. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest included receipt of any opioid prescription and, among those with at least 1 opioid prescription, the mean number of opioid prescriptions, mean morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) per day, and mean days' supply. Results: Among 482 118 children and adolescents (754 368 person-years of data aggregated to the state-year level), 245 178 (50.9%) were male, with a mean (SD) age of 9.8 (4.8) years at the first year included in the sample (data on race and ethnicity were not collected as part of this data set, which was obtained from insurance billing claims). Overall, 10 659 children and adolescents (2.2%) received at least 1 opioid prescription during the study period. Among those with at least 1 prescription, the mean (SD) number of filled opioid prescriptions was 1.2 (0.8) per person per year. No statistically significant association was found between state opioid prescribing cap laws and any outcome. After opioid prescribing cap laws were implemented, a -0.001 (95% CI, -0.005 to 0.002) percentage point decrease in the proportion of youths receiving any opioid prescription was observed. In addition, percentage point decreases of -0.01 (95% CI, -0.10 to 0.09) in high-dose opioid prescriptions (>50 MMEs per day) and -0.02 (95% CI, -0.12 to 0.08) in long-duration opioid prescriptions (>7 days' supply) were found after cap laws were implemented. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, no association was observed between state opioid prescribing cap laws and the receipt of opioid prescriptions among children and adolescents. Alternative strategies, such as opioid prescribing guidelines tailored to youths, are needed.

Reimagining public safety: Public opinion on police reform and gun violence prevention by race and gun ownership in the United States.

Inequitable experiences of community gun violence and victimization by police use of force led to nationwide calls to "reimagine public safety" in 2020. In January 2021, we examined public support among U.S. adults for 7 policy approaches to reforming policing and investing in community gun violence prevention. Using a nationally representative sample (N = 2778), with oversampling for Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, and gun owners, we assessed support overall and by racial, ethnic, and gun owner subgroups. Overall, we found majority support for funding and implementing police and mental health co-responder models (66% and 76%, respectively), diversion from incarceration for people with symptoms of mental illness (72%), stronger laws to assure police accountability (72%), and funding for community-based and hospital-based gun violence prevention programs (69% and 60%, respectively). Support for redirecting funding from the police to social services was more variable (44% overall; White: 35%, Black: 60%, Hispanic: 43%). For all survey items, support was strongest among Black Americans. Gun owners overall reported lower support for public safety reforms and investments than respondents who did not own guns, but this distinction was found to be driven by White gun owners. The views of Black gun owners were indistinguishable from Black non-owners and were similar to White non-owners on most issues. These findings suggest that broad public support exists for innovative violence reduction strategies and public safety reforms.

Effects of state opioid prescribing cap laws on opioid prescribing after surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of state opioid prescribing cap laws on opioid prescribing after surgery. DATA SOURCES: OptumLabs Data Warehouse administrative claims data covering all 50 states from July 2012 through June 2019. STUDY DESIGN: We included individuals from 20 states that had implemented prescribing cap laws without exemptions for postsurgical pain by June 2019 and individuals from 16 control states plus the District of Columbia. We used a difference-in-differences approach accounting for differential timing in law implementation across states to estimate the effects of state prescribing cap laws on postsurgical prescribing of opioids. Outcome measures included filling an opioid prescription within 30 days after surgery; filling opioid prescriptions of specific doses or durations; and the number, days' supply, daily dose, and pill quantity of opioid prescriptions. To assess the validity of the parallel counterfactual trends assumption, we examined differences in outcome trends between law-implementing and control states in the years preceding law implementation using an equivalence testing framework. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We included the first surgery in the study period for opioid-naïve individuals undergoing one of eight common surgical procedures. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: State prescribing cap laws were associated with 0.109 lower days' supply of postsurgical opioids on the log scale (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: -0.139, -0.080) but were not associated with the number (Average treatment effect on the treated [ATT]: -0.011; 95% CI: -0.043, 0.021) or daily dose of postsurgical opioid prescriptions (ATT: -0.013; 95% CI: -0.030, 0.005). The negative association observed between prescribing cap laws and the probability of filling a postsurgical opioid prescription (ATT: -0.041; 95% CI: -0.054, -0.028) was likely spurious, given differences between law-implementing and control states in the pre-law period. CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing cap laws appear to have minimal effects on postsurgical opioid prescribing.

Pandemic-Related Workplace Violence and Its Impact on Public Health Officials, March 2020‒January 2021.

Objectives. To characterize the experience and impact of pandemic-related workplace violence in the form of harassment and threats against public health officials. Methods. We used a mixed methods approach, combining media content and a national survey of local health departments (LHDs) in the United States, to identify harassment against public health officials from March 2020 to January 2021. We compared media-portrayed experiences, survey-reported experiences, and publicly reported position departures. Results. At least 1499 harassment experiences were identified by LHD survey respondents, representing 57% of responding departments. We also identified 222 position departures by public health officials nationally, 36% alongside reports of harassment. Public health officials described experiencing structural and political undermining of their professional duties, marginalization of their expertise, social villainization, and disillusionment. Many affected leaders remain in their positions. Conclusions. Interventions to reduce undermining, ostracizing, and intimidating acts against health officials are needed for a sustainable public health system. We recommend training leaders to respond to political conflict, improving colleague support networks, providing trauma-informed worker support, investing in long-term public health staffing and infrastructure, and establishing workplace violence reporting systems and legal protections. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(5):736-746. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306649).

Problems with evidence assessment in COVID-19 health policy impact evaluation: a systematic review of study design and evidence strength.

INTRODUCTION: Assessing the impact of COVID-19 policy is critical for informing future policies. However, there are concerns about the overall strength of COVID-19 impact evaluation studies given the circumstances for evaluation and concerns about the publication environment. METHODS: We included studies that were primarily designed to estimate the quantitative impact of one or more implemented COVID-19 policies on direct SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 outcomes. After searching PubMed for peer-reviewed articles published on 26 November 2020 or earlier and screening, all studies were reviewed by three reviewers first independently and then to consensus. The review tool was based on previously developed and released review guidance for COVID-19 policy impact evaluation. RESULTS: After 102 articles were identified as potentially meeting inclusion criteria, we identified 36 published articles that evaluated the quantitative impact of COVID-19 policies on direct COVID-19 outcomes. Nine studies were set aside because the study design was considered inappropriate for COVID-19 policy impact evaluation (n=8 pre/post; n=1 cross-sectional), and 27 articles were given a full consensus assessment. 20/27 met criteria for graphical display of data, 5/27 for functional form, 19/27 for timing between policy implementation and impact, and only 3/27 for concurrent changes to the outcomes. Only 4/27 were rated as overall appropriate. Including the 9 studies set aside, reviewers found that only four of the 36 identified published and peer-reviewed health policy impact evaluation studies passed a set of key design checks for identifying the causal impact of policies on COVID-19 outcomes. DISCUSSION: The reviewed literature directly evaluating the impact of COVID-19 policies largely failed to meet key design criteria for inference of sufficient rigour to be actionable by policy-makers. More reliable evidence review is needed to both identify and produce policy-actionable evidence, alongside the recognition that actionable evidence is often unlikely to be feasible.

Predictors of cancer screening among Black and White Maryland Medicaid enrollees with serious mental illness.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is the second leading cause of death for people with serious mental illness (SMI), such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. People with SMI receive cancer screenings at lower rates than the general population. AIMS: We sought to identify factors associated with cancer screening in a publicly insured population with SMI and stratified by race, a factor itself linked with differential rates of cancer screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used Maryland Medicaid administrative claims data (2010-2018) to examine screening rates for cervical cancer (N = 40,622), breast cancer (N = 9818), colorectal cancer (N = 19,306), and prostate cancer (N = 4887) among eligible Black and white enrollees with SMI. We examined individual-level socio-demographic and clinical factors, including co-occurring substance use disorder, medical comorbidities, psychiatric diagnosis, obstetric-gynecologic and primary care utilization, as well as county-level characteristics, including metropolitan status, mean household income, and primary care workforce capacity. Generalized estimating equations with a logit link were used to examine the characteristics associated with cancer screening. RESULTS: Compared with white enrollees, Black enrollees were more likely to receive screening for cervical cancer (AOR: 1.18; 95% CI: 1.15-1.22), breast cancer (AOR: 1.27; 95% CI: 1.19-1.36), and colorectal cancer (AOR: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.02-1.13), while similar rates were observed for prostate cancer screening (AOR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.96-1.18). Primary care utilization and longer Medicaid enrollment were positively associated with cancer screening while co-occurring substance use disorder was negatively associated with cancer screening. CONCLUSION: Improving cancer screening rates among populations with SMI should focus on facilitating continuous insurance coverage and access to primary care.

Cancer Screening Among Adults With and Without Serious Mental Illness: A Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Persons with serious mental illness (SMI) die 10-20 years earlier than the general population; cancer is the second leading cause of death. Differences in cancer screening between SMI and the general population are not well understood. OBJECTIVES: To describe receipt of cancer screening among individuals with versus without SMI and to explore clinicians' perceptions around cancer screening for people with SMI. METHODS: Mixed-methods study using 2010-2017 MarketScan commercial insurance administrative claims data and semi-structured clinician interviews. In the quantitative analyses, we used multivariate logistic regression analyses to calculate the likelihood of receiving cervical, breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer screening among people with versus without SMI, defined as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 primary care physicians and 15 psychiatrists. Interview transcripts were coded using a hybrid deductive/inductive approach. RESULTS: Relative to those without SMI, individuals with SMI were less likely to receive screening for cervical cancer [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.80-0.81], breast cancer (aOR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.78-0.80), colorectal cancer (aOR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.89-0.91), and prostate cancer (aOR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.84-0.87). Clinicians identified 5 themes that may help explain the lower rates of cancer screening in persons with SMI: access to care, available support, prioritization of other issues, communication, and patient concerns. CONCLUSIONS: People with SMI were less likely to receive 4 common types of cancer screening. Improving cancer screening rates in the SMI population will likely require a multidisciplinary approach to overcome barriers to screening.

The role of stigma in U.S. primary care physicians' treatment of opioid use disorder.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize primary care physicians' (PCPs) attitudes and beliefs about people with opioid use disorder (OUD) and to understand the association between PCPs' stigmatizing attitudes and their OUD treatment practices, beliefs about treatment effectiveness, and support for policies designed to improve access to OUD medications. METHODS: We conducted a national postal survey of U.S. PCPs from January to August 2019. Survey items measured respondents' attitudes, beliefs, and current treatment practices. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the original 1000 PCPs in the survey sample, 668 were deemed eligible to participate in the study. The survey was completed by 361 PCPs for an adjusted response rate of 54 %. PCPs reported high levels of stigmatizing attitudes. Less than 30 % of PCPs reported that they were willing to have a person taking medication for OUD as a neighbor or marry into their family, even if that person was being treated with medication. Greater stigma was associated with an 11 percentage point lower likelihood that PCPs prescribed OUD medication and lower support for policies intended to increase access to OUD medication. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing OUD stigma among PCPs is a public health priority in addressing the ongoing opioid crisis.

Problems with Evidence Assessment in COVID-19 Health Policy Impact Evaluation: A systematic review of study design and evidence strength.

INTRODUCTION: Assessing the impact of COVID-19 policy is critical for informing future policies. However, there are concerns about the overall strength of COVID-19 impact evaluation studies given the circumstances for evaluation and concerns about the publication environment. This study systematically reviewed the strength of evidence in the published COVID-19 policy impact evaluation literature. METHODS: We included studies that were primarily designed to estimate the quantitative impact of one or more implemented COVID-19 policies on direct SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 outcomes. After searching PubMed for peer-reviewed articles published on November 26, 2020 or earlier and screening, all studies were reviewed by three reviewers first independently and then to consensus. The review tool was based on previously developed and released review guidance for COVID-19 policy impact evaluation, assessing what impact evaluation method was used, graphical display of outcomes data, functional form for the outcomes, timing between policy and impact, concurrent changes to the outcomes, and an overall rating. RESULTS: After 102 articles were identified as potentially meeting inclusion criteria, we identified 36 published articles that evaluated the quantitative impact of COVID-19 policies on direct COVID-19 outcomes. The majority (n=23/36) of studies in our sample examined the impact of stay-at-home requirements. Nine studies were set aside because the study design was considered inappropriate for COVID-19 policy impact evaluation (n=8 pre/post; n=1 cross-section), and 27 articles were given a full consensus assessment. 20/27 met criteria for graphical display of data, 5/27 for functional form, 19/27 for timing between policy implementation and impact, and only 3/27 for concurrent changes to the outcomes. Only 1/27 studies passed all of the above checks, and 4/27 were rated as overall appropriate. Including the 9 studies set aside, reviewers found that only four of the 36 identified published and peer-reviewed health policy impact evaluation studies passed a set of key design checks for identifying the causal impact of policies on COVID-19 outcomes. DISCUSSION: The reviewed literature directly evaluating the impact of COVID-19 policies largely failed to meet key design criteria for inference of sufficient rigor to be actionable by policymakers. This was largely driven by the circumstances under which policies were passed making it difficult to attribute changes in COVID-19 outcomes to particular policies. More reliable evidence review is needed to both identify and produce policy-actionable evidence, alongside the recognition that actionable evidence is often unlikely to be feasible.

Behavioral health home impact on transitional care and readmissions among adults with serious mental illness.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of Maryland's behavioral health homes (BHHs) on receipt of follow-up care and readmissions following hospitalization among Medicaid enrollees with serious mental illness (SMI). DATA SOURCES: Maryland Medicaid administrative claims for 12 232 individuals. STUDY DESIGN: Weighted marginal structural models were estimated to account for time-varying exposure to BHH enrollment and time-varying confounders. These models compared changes over time in outcomes among BHH and comparison participants. Outcome measures included readmissions and follow-up care within 7 and 30 days following hospitalization. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Eligibility criteria included continuous enrollment in Medicaid for the first two years of the study period; 21-64 years; and use of psychiatric rehabilitation services. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Over three years, BHH enrollment was associated with 3.8 percentage point (95% CI: 1.5, 6.1) increased probability of having a mental health follow-up service within 7 days of discharge from a mental illness-related hospitalization and 1.9 percentage point (95% CI: 0.0, 3.9) increased probability of having a general medical follow-up within 7 days of discharge from a somatic hospitalization. BHHs had no effect on probability of readmission. CONCLUSIONS: BHHs may improve follow-up care for Medicaid enrollees with SMI, but effects do not translate into reduced risk of readmission.