The "standard story" of anti-Maori talk in Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill submissions.

AIM: To review some common patterns of race talk in a sample of submissions made to the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill. This bill proposed a structural reform of the health system in Aotearoa New Zealand to address long-standing health inequities experienced by Maori, the Indigenous peoples, and other priority populations. METHOD: In a sample of 3,000 individual submissions made in late 2021, we found 2,536 explicit references to race. Utilising the "standard story" frame of Pakeha/non-Maori race talk, five longer submissions that inferred that the Pae Ora bill was "racist" were analysed in detail. RESULTS: Many "standard story" race discourses were identified in the Pae Ora submissions. Three derived discourses included in this paper are: Pakeha as norm (monoculturalism or not seeing Pakeha as a culture), equality and the "Treaty" (equality for all to access healthcare), and one people (we are all New Zealanders). Sources such as the Waitangi Tribunal Wai 2575 Hauora report were drawn on to provide alternative discourses. CONCLUSION: Identifying Pakeha standard story discourses enables learning about language patterns systems draw on, and the development of tools and procedures to improve equity for Maori and eliminate institutional racism.

Recent Patent Reform Bills and Their Implications for Prescription Drugs.

This Viewpoint discusses 3 bills introduced recently in Congress that focus on patent eligibility, fraud, and quality and that have major implications for clinical medicine and pharmaceutical development.

Association Between 2010 Medicare Reform and Inpatient Rehabilitation Access in People With Intracerebral Hemorrhage.

Background Evidence suggests intracerebral hemorrhage survivors have earlier recovery compared with ischemic stroke survivors. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services prospective payment system instituted documentation rules for inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) in 2010, with the goal of optimizing patient selection. We investigated whether these requirements limited IRF and increased skilled nursing facility (SNF) use compared with home discharge. Methods and Results Intracerebral hemorrhage discharges to IRF, SNF, or home were estimated using GWTG (Get With The Guidelines) Stroke registry data between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2015 (n=265 444). Binary hierarchical models determined associations between the 2010 Rule and discharge setting; subgroup analyses evaluated age, geographic region, and hospital type. From January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2009, 45.5% of patients with intracerebral hemorrhage had home discharge, 22.2% went to SNF, and 32.3% went to IRF. After January 1, 2010, there was a 1.06% absolute increase in home discharge, a 0.46% increase in SNF, and a 1.52% decline in IRF. The adjusted odds of IRF versus home discharge decreased 3% after 2010 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-1.00). Lower odds of IRF versus home discharge were observed in people aged <65 years (aOR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.89-0.96), Western states (aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.95), and nonteaching hospitals (aOR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86-0.95). Adjusted odds of SNF versus home discharge increased 14% after 2010 (aOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.11-1.18); there were significant associations in all age groups, the Northeast, the South, the Midwest, and teaching hospitals. Conclusions The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 2010 IRF prospective payment system Rule resulted in fewer discharges to IRF and more discharges to SNF in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage. Health policy changes potentially affect access to intensive postacute rehabilitation.

The role of the Basic Public Health Service program in the control of hypertension in China: Results from a cross-sectional health service interview survey.

OBJECTIVES: Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) have become the main cause of mortality in China. In 2009, the Chinese government introduced the Basic Public Health Service (BPHS) program to relieve the rising burden of NCDs through public health measures and delivery of essential medical care. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the BPHS program on hypertension control. METHODS: The China National Health Development Research Center (CNHDRC) undertook a Cross-sectional Health Service Interview Survey (CHSIS) of 62,097 people from primary healthcare reform pilot areas across 17 provinces from eastern, central, and western parts of China in 2014. The current study is based on responses to the CHSIS survey from 7,867 participants, who had been diagnosed with hypertension. Multi-variable mixed logit regression analysis was used to estimate the association between BPHS management and uncontrolled hypertension. In a follow-up analysis, generalized structural equation modelling (GSEM) was used to test for mediation of the BPHS program effect through patient compliance with medication. FINDINGS: The estimated proportion of patients with uncontrolled hypertension was 30% lower (23.2% vs 31.5%) in those participants who were adequately managed under the BPHS program. Other predictors of hypertension control included compliance with medication, self-reported wellbeing, income, educational attainment and exercise; smoking was associated with reduced hypertension control. The significant inverse association between uncontrolled hypertension and age indicates poor outcomes for younger patients. Additional testing suggested that nearly 40% of the effect of BPHS management (95% CI: 28.2 to 51.7) could be mediated by improved compliance with medication; there was also an indication that the effect of management was 30% stronger in districts/counties with established digital information management systems (IMS). CONCLUSION: Hypertension control improved markedly following active management through the BPHS program. Some of that improvement could be explained by greater compliance with medication among program participants. This study also identified the need to tailor the BPHS program to the needs of younger patients to achieve higher levels of control in this population. Future investigations should explore ways in which existing healthcare management influences the success of the BPHS program.

What does abortion law reform mean for primary care practitioners in New Zealand?

New Zealand achieved a major sexual reproductive health and rights milestone when abortion ceased to be a crime. Introduction of the Abortion Legislation Act 2020 has significantly changed the way abortion care can be provided in New Zealand, with the potential to improve access, reduce inequities and transform the abortion experience for those people who choose to end their pregnancy. The primary care sector stands to be a key player in the provision of first-trimester abortion care. However, with issues relating to funding, training and access to medications yet to be resolved, the health sector is not yet ready to provide best-practice abortion care within the new legislative framework.

COVID-19: The Time for Collaboration Between Long-Term Services and Supports, Health Care Systems, and Public Health Is Now.

Policy Points To address systemic problems amplified by COVID-19, we need to restructure US long-term services and supports (LTSS) as they relate to both the health care systems and public health systems. We present both near-term and long-term policy solutions. Seven near-term policy recommendations include requiring the uniform public reporting of COVID-19 cases in all LTSS settings; identifying and supporting unpaid caregivers; bolstering protections for the direct care workforce; increasing coordination between public health departments and LTSS agencies and providers; enhancing collaboration and communication across health, LTSS, and public health systems; further reducing barriers to telehealth in LTSS; and providing incentives to care for vulnerable populations. Long-term reform should focus on comprehensive workforce development, comprehensive LTSS financing reform, and the creation of an age-friendly public health system. CONTEXT: The heavy toll of COVID-19 brings the failings of the long-term services and supports (LTSS) system in the United States into sharp focus. Although these are not new problems, the pandemic has exacerbated and amplified their impact to a point that they are impossible to ignore. The primary blame for the high rates of COVID-19 infections and deaths has been assigned to formal LTSS care settings, specifically nursing homes. Yet other systemic problems have been unearthed during this pandemic: the failure to coordinate the US public health system at the federal level and the effects of long-term disinvestment and neglect of state- and local-level public health programs. Together these failures have contributed to an inability to coordinate with the LTSS system and to act early to protect residents and staff in the LTSS care settings that are hotspots for infection, spread, and serious negative health outcomes. METHODS: We analyze several impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the US LTSS system and policy arrangements. The economic toll on state budgets has been multifaceted, and the pandemic has had a direct impact on Medicaid, the primary funder of LTSS, which in turn has further exacerbated the states' fiscal problems. Both the inequalities across race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status as well as the increased burden on unpaid caregivers are clear. So too is the need to better integrate LTSS with the health, social care, and public health systems. FINDINGS: We propose seven near-term actions that US policymakers could take: implementing a uniform public reporting of COVID-19 cases in LTSS settings; identifying and supporting unpaid caregivers; bolstering support for the direct care workforce; increasing coordination between public health departments and LTSS agencies and providers; enhancing collaboration and communication across health, LTSS, and public health systems; further reducing the barriers to telehealth in LTSS; and providing incentives to care for our most vulnerable populations. Our analysis also demonstrates that our nation requires comprehensive reform to build the LTSS system we need through comprehensive workforce development, universal coverage through comprehensive financing reform, and the creation of an age-friendly public health system. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 has exposed the many deficits of the US LTSS system and made clear the interdependence of LTSS with public health. Policymakers have an opportunity to address these failings through a substantive reform of the LTSS system and increased collaboration with public health agencies and leaders. The opportunity for reform is now.