Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 99
Filter
3.
J Health Econ ; 44: 309-19, 2015 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26596789

ABSTRACT

In February 2009 the U.S. Congress unexpectedly passed the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH). HITECH provides up to $27 billion to promote adoption and appropriate use of Electronic Medical Records (EMR) by hospitals. We measure the extent to which HITECH incentive payments spurred EMR adoption by independent hospitals. Adoption rates for all independent hospitals grew from 48 percent in 2008 to 77 percent by 2011. Absent HITECH incentives, we estimate that the adoption rate would have instead been 67 percent in 2011. When we consider that HITECH funds were available for all hospitals and not just marginal adopters, we estimate that the cost of generating an additional adoption was $48 million. We also estimate that in the absence of HITECH incentives, the 77 percent adoption rate would have been realized by 2013, just 2 years after the date achieved due to HITECH.


Subject(s)
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act/economics , Economics, Hospital , Electronic Health Records/economics , Medicaid/economics , Medicare/economics , Reimbursement, Incentive/economics , American Recovery and Reinvestment Act/statistics & numerical data , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Economics, Hospital/legislation & jurisprudence , Economics, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Electronic Health Records/legislation & jurisprudence , Electronic Health Records/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Investments/economics , Investments/legislation & jurisprudence , Medicaid/legislation & jurisprudence , Medicare/legislation & jurisprudence , Reimbursement, Incentive/legislation & jurisprudence , Taxes/economics , Taxes/legislation & jurisprudence , United States
6.
J Comp Eff Res ; 3(6): 601-7, 2014 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25494566

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) directed nearly US$29.2 million to comparative effectiveness research (CER) methods development. AIM: To help inform future CER methods investments, we describe the ARRA CER methods projects, identify barriers to this research and discuss the alignment of topics with published methods development priorities. METHODS: We used several existing resources and held discussions with ARRA CER methods investigators. RESULTS & CONCLUSION: Although funded projects explored many identified priority topics, investigators noted that much work remains. For example, given the considerable investments in CER data infrastructure, the methods development field can benefit from additional efforts to educate researchers about the availability of new data sources and about how best to apply methods to match their research questions and data.


Subject(s)
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act/economics , Comparative Effectiveness Research/economics , Financing, Government/economics , Research Support as Topic/economics , Comparative Effectiveness Research/trends , Financing, Government/trends , Forecasting , Research Design/trends , Research Support as Topic/trends , United States
7.
J Comp Eff Res ; 3(6): 591-600, 2014 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25494565

ABSTRACT

AIM: This article describes American Reinvestment and Recovery Act comparative effectiveness research data infrastructure (DI) investments and identifies facilitators and barriers to implementation. MATERIALS & METHODS: We reviewed original project proposals, conducted an investigator survey and interviewed project officers and principal investigators. RESULTS: DI projects assembled or enhanced existing clinical datasets, established linkages between public and private data sources and built infrastructure. Facilitators included building on existing relationships across organizations and making collection as seamless as possible for clinicians. CONCLUSION: To sustain DI, investigators should reduce the burden of comparative effectiveness research data collection on practices, adequately address data privacy and security issues, resolve or lessen the impact of data-linking issues and build research capacity for other investigators and clinicians.


Subject(s)
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act/economics , Comparative Effectiveness Research/economics , Data Collection/economics , Financing, Government/economics , Computer Security , Goals , Interprofessional Relations , Research Design , Research Personnel , United States
9.
Am J Public Health ; 104(4): e27-33, 2014 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24524522

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated capacity built and outcomes achieved from September 1, 2009, to December 31, 2011, by 51 health departments (HDs) funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) for health care-associated infection (HAI) program development. METHODS: We defined capacity for HAI prevention at HDs by 25 indicators of activity in 6 categories: staffing, partnerships, training, technical assistance, surveillance, and prevention. We assessed state-level infection outcomes by modeling quarterly standardized infection ratios (SIRs) for device- and procedure-associated infections with longitudinal regression models. RESULTS: With ARRA funds, HDs created 188 HAI-related positions and supported 1042 training programs, 53 surveillance data validation projects, and 60 prevention collaboratives. All states demonstrated significant declines in central line-associated bloodstream and surgical site infections. States that implemented ARRA-funded catheter-associated urinary tract infection prevention collaboratives showed significantly greater SIR reductions over time than states that did not (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: ARRA-HAI funding substantially improved HD capacity to reduce HAIs not targeted by other national efforts, suggesting that HDs can play a critical role in addressing emerging or neglected HAIs.


Subject(s)
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act/organization & administration , Cross Infection/prevention & control , American Recovery and Reinvestment Act/economics , Capacity Building/economics , Capacity Building/organization & administration , Cross Infection/economics , Government Agencies/economics , Government Agencies/organization & administration , Humans , Program Development , Public Health/economics , State Government , United States
10.
J Behav Health Serv Res ; 41(4): 548-58, 2014 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24026236

ABSTRACT

Across the USA, health care systems are recognizing the value of integrating behavioral health services and primary care. The Texas Legislature took a unique approach to integration, passing legislation creating a Workgroup to explore key issues, identify best practices, and recommend policy and practice changes. This article situates the Workgroup in a rapidly evolving policy environment, describing the passage of integrated health care legislation in Texas, the Integration of Health and Behavioral Health Services Workgroup that was created by the legislation, and the policy recommendations that emerged from the Workgroup. The article analyzes how the Workgroup process intersected with a changing policy environment in Texas and nationally, opening the door for essential collaboration and partnership. The Workgroup ultimately laid the groundwork for integration's key role in a comprehensive Medicaid transformation waiver designed to expand access, improve population health and satisfaction with treatment, while better managing costs.


Subject(s)
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act/standards , Delivery of Health Care, Integrated/organization & administration , Health Planning/organization & administration , Mental Health Services/organization & administration , Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act/standards , Primary Health Care/organization & administration , American Recovery and Reinvestment Act/economics , Chronic Disease , Comorbidity/trends , Delivery of Health Care, Integrated/economics , Delivery of Health Care, Integrated/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Plan Implementation/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Plan Implementation/organization & administration , Health Planning/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Policy , Humans , Meaningful Use/legislation & jurisprudence , Mental Health Services/economics , Mental Health Services/legislation & jurisprudence , Organizational Case Studies , Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act/economics , Primary Health Care/economics , Primary Health Care/legislation & jurisprudence , Texas , United States
16.
J Nurs Adm ; 42(11): 493-6, 2012 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23099997

ABSTRACT

This department highlights topics in nursing outcomes, research, and evidence-based practice relevant to nurse administrators. In this article, the authors describe patient access to personal health information as it relates to the meaningful-use requirement, technologies that have been used to enhance patient engagement, and the nursing leadership implications.


Subject(s)
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act/economics , Electronic Health Records/legislation & jurisprudence , Meaningful Use/legislation & jurisprudence , Patient Access to Records/legislation & jurisprudence , Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S./economics , Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S./legislation & jurisprudence , Electronic Health Records/economics , Humans , Meaningful Use/economics , Nurse Administrators/organization & administration , Nurse's Role , Patient Access to Records/economics , Reimbursement, Incentive/legislation & jurisprudence , United States
17.
Health Aff (Millwood) ; 31(8): 1796-802, 2012 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22869658

ABSTRACT

As the number of children living in poverty has increased steadily over the past decade, Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) have enrolled millions of additional youths. Federal and state governments jointly finance both programs, with the federal portion determined by the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, commonly known as the "federal match." The federal government has used intermittent increases in the federal match as a way to provide fiscal relief to states during economic downturns. The most recent broad increase ended in June 2011, but the precise impact on Medicaid and CHIP enrollment for children is not known. No previous study has evaluated the association of the federal match with children's enrollment in state Medicaid or CHIP programs in the context of other state factors. To shed light on the degree to which public coverage for children varies with differences in the federal match, we examined publicly available data from all fifty states from 1999 to 2009. We found that a ten-percentage-point increase in the federal match was associated with a 1.9 percent increase in Medicaid and CHIP enrollment, equivalent to approximately 500,000 children. This association persisted when adjusted for multiple state-level factors, including the proportion of children living in poverty. This analysis underscores the central role of the federal match in supporting expansion of Medicaid and CHIP coverage for children.


Subject(s)
Insurance Coverage/economics , Insurance Coverage/statistics & numerical data , Medicaid/economics , National Health Insurance, United States/economics , American Recovery and Reinvestment Act/economics , Child Health Services , Child, Preschool , Databases, Factual , Federal Government , Financing, Government , Humans , Poverty , State Health Plans , United States
20.
Minn Med ; 95(2): 42-4, 2012 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22474895

ABSTRACT

The recent recession had a significant impact on the nation and Minnesota both in terms of the number of jobs lost and the loss of employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI). In this article, we present national and Minnesota-specific data on the loss of ESI. We also explore how government-sponsored programs provided a safety net that enabled many people with low incomes to retain health insurance coverage, lessening the recession's impact in Minnesota. We conclude with general comments about the role of the safety net in a health care system in which the majority of people have health care coverage through voluntary employer-based programs.


Subject(s)
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act/economics , Economic Recession , Government Programs/economics , Medical Assistance/economics , Medically Uninsured , American Recovery and Reinvestment Act/trends , Female , Forecasting , Government Programs/trends , Health Services Needs and Demand/economics , Health Services Needs and Demand/trends , Humans , Male , Medicaid/economics , Medicaid/trends , Medical Assistance/trends , Minnesota , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...