Evaluation of State-Mandated Reporting of Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome - Six States, 2013-2017.

From 2004 to 2014, the incidence of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) in the United States increased 433%, from 1.5 to 8.0 per 1,000 hospital births. The latest national data from 2014 indicate that one baby was born with signs of NAS every 15 minutes in the United States (1). NAS is a drug withdrawal syndrome that most commonly occurs among infants after in utero exposure to opioids, although other substances have also been associated with NAS. Prenatal opioid exposure has also been associated with poor fetal growth, preterm birth, stillbirth, and possible specific birth defects (2-5). NAS surveillance has often depended on hospital discharge data, which historically underestimate the incidence of NAS and are not available in real time, thus limiting states' ability to quickly direct public health resources (6,7). This evaluation focused on six states with state laws implementing required NAS case reporting for public health surveillance during 2013-2017 and reviews implementation of the laws, state officials' reports of data quality before and after laws were passed, and advantages and challenges of legally mandating NAS reporting for public health surveillance in the absence of a national case definition. Using standardized search terms in an online legal research database, laws in six states mandating reporting of NAS from medical facilities to state health departments (SHDs) or from SHDs to a state legislative body were identified. SHD officials in these six states completed a questionnaire followed by a semistructured telephone interview to clarify open-text responses from the questionnaire. Variability was found in the type and number of surveillance data elements reported and in how states used NAS surveillance data. Following implementation, five states with identified laws reported receiving NAS case reports within 30 days of diagnosis. Mandated NAS case reporting allowed SHDs to quantify the incidence of NAS in their states and to inform programs and services. This information might be useful to states considering implementing mandatory NAS surveillance.

Assessment of State Perinatal Hepatitis B Prevention Laws.

INTRODUCTION: Identifying pregnant women with hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection for post-exposure prophylaxis of their infants is critical to preventing mother-to-child transmission of HBV infection. HBV infection in infancy results in premature death from chronic liver disease or cancer in 25% of affected infants. Universal screening of pregnant women for HBV infection is the standard of care, and in many states is supported by laws for screening and reporting these infections to public health. No recent assessment of state screening and reporting laws for HBV infection has been published. METHODS: In 2014, the authors analyzed laws current through December 31, 2013 from U.S. jurisdictions (50 states and the District of Columbia) related to HBV infection and hepatitis B surface antigen screening and reporting requirements generally and for pregnant women specifically. RESULTS: All states require reporting of cases of HBV infection. Twenty-six states require pregnant women to be screened. Thirty-three states require public health reporting of HBV infections in pregnant women, but only 12 states require reporting pregnancy status of women with HBV infection. CONCLUSIONS: This assessment revealed significant variability in laws related to screening and reporting of HBV infection among pregnant women in the U.S. Implementing comprehensive HBV infection screening and reporting laws for pregnant women may facilitate identifying HBV-infected pregnant women and preventing HBV infection in their infants.

State adolescent consent laws and implications for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Recent large clinical trials have found that pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) reduced HIV infection among men who have sex with men (MSM), but efforts to provide clinical care to minors, including young MSM, may be complicated by a lack of clarity regarding parental consent requirements with respect to medical services. PURPOSE: The goal of this paper was to analyze law related to a minor's ability to consent to medical care, including HIV diagnostic testing and treatment, and its implications for PrEP. METHODS: Analysis was performed in 2012 on laws current as of December 31, 2011. Public Health Law Program staff collected all statutes and regulations pertaining to an adolescent's ability to consent to HIV diagnostic testing and treatment and sexually transmitted infection (STI) diagnostic testing, treatment, and prevention. RESULTS: No state expressly prohibits minors' access to PrEP or other HIV prevention methods. All jurisdictions expressly allow some minors to consent to medical care for the diagnosis or treatment of STIs, but only eight jurisdictions allow consent to preventive or prophylactic services. Thirty-four states either expressly allow minors to consent to HIV services or allow consent to STI or communicable disease services and classify HIV as an STI or communicable disease. Seventeen jurisdictions allow minors to consent to STI testing and treatment, but they do not have an express HIV provision nor classify HIV as an STI or communicable disease. CONCLUSIONS: Minors' access to PrEP without parental consent is unclear, and further analysis is needed to evaluate how state law may relate to the provision of clinical interventions for the prevention of HIV infection.