12
   

We Have A Republican Party Waging A War Against Women And Women's Healthcare.

 
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2018 07:23 pm
Propaganda starts with a narrative. Often this is a narrative that attacks people. It is good versus evil... anyone who agrees is good, and anyone who disagrees as evil. Once you have a narrative, then you can find (or event) facts that fit your narrative and ignore all facts that contradict it.

There is a big problem with the narrative that Republicans have a war on women; There are Republican women. Yes, 41% of American voted for Donald Trump. 38% of women believe that abortion should be illegal in "all or most cases". Of course women don't fit into ideological boxes... there are liberal women and feminists who believe that abortion should be illegal.

The idea that this is men versus women is simply, and demonstrably false. I have no problem with the liberal talking points on this thread. Some of them I agree with, some of them I think are little ridiculous. These are my opinions.

The problem on this thread is the incivility. There is nothing wrong with expressing or defending your opinions on this topic. I have expressed my opinions, and defended them. I have challenged other people's opinions, and I am fine with people challenging my own opinions. I have done this all without attacking anyone personally.

Civility is how you treat people who disagree with you. There is nothing wrong with telling me or anyone else that you disagree with my points, or my opinion, or even that what I am saying is nonsense. This is all part of a civil discussion.

The personal attacks, attempts to demonize people, name-calling are coming from one side of the discussion (at least in this thread). Saying that Republican women are part of a "war on women" was just the beginning.

When you are focusing your argument on how bad your opponents are, rather than on the issue itself, you may not be discussing in a civil manner. The goal here seems to be to stop certain viewpoints from being discussed by attacking anyone who dares to express them.
neptuneblue
 
  3  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2018 07:28 pm
@maxdancona,
Senate Republicans’ hard lesson: No women, no health-care bill
By Amber Phillips
July 19, 2017
Email the author
(Thomas Johnson/The Washington Post)

When this whole health-care saga started a few months ago, Senate Republican leaders originally blocked all five GOP women from negotiations for their bill. And on Tuesday, three Republican women sank leaders' last-ditch effort to do something toward their promise to repeal and replace Obamacare.

Women, in other words, were notable bookends in Republicans' inability to pass a health-care bill.

After Senate Republicans' second version of a health-care bill collapsed Monday under the weight of more than a dozen senators (male and female) who had concerns, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) decided to just vote on repealing Obamacare without a replacement.

McConnell's aim was to stick it to conservative senators who played an outsize role in sinking the first two versions of the bill. He was daring them to pull the trigger on something that could leave 32 million more people uninsured over the next decade and blow up the insurance markets.

But before McConnell could even play chicken with these (mostly male) senators, by lunchtime Monday, Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) shut that down.

“I did not come to Washington to hurt people,” Capito tweeted.

“I do not think that it’s constructive to repeal a law that is so interwoven within our health care system without having a replacement plan in place,” Collins said in a statement.

“I cannot vote to proceed to repeal [Obamacare] without reform that allows people the choice they want, the affordability they need and the quality of care they deserve,” Murkowski said.

In the Senate's incremental world, three no votes is enough to stop a bill from even getting a chance for a full vote. By lunchtime Monday, Republicans' efforts to unwind Obamacare was dead again, less than 12 hours after it had already died.

And it was Senate Republican women, originally left out of the process, who killed it.


Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) on Capitol Hill last month. (Melina Mara/The Washington Post)
Let's rewind to explain why the Senate's five Republican women weren't originally involved in crafting a health-care bill. Republican leaders have been trying to write a bill that could pass an ideologically divided Senate since May, when House Republicans barely passed a controversial — and largely unpopular — piece of legislation. Senate leadership promptly threw that in the trash.

Instead, Republicans set up a group of about a dozen lawmakers to come up with something more moderate. None of them were women. Republican aides stressed that the group was soon opened to any GOP senator who wanted to participate.

Leaving women out of the negotiations for legislation that affects half the population in a very intimate way was a huge optics blunder for Republicans. It underscored the party's lack of diversity, especially in the Senate, where 47 out of 52 Republicans are men.

2:03
Meet the all-male coalition that worked on the Senate’s health-care bill
Senate coalitions formed to vie for their health-care interests. One of the more controversial groups included the GOP's Senate leadership - and no women. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

Just last year, Collins had told researchers for a report about women in Congress that as a woman in this nearly all-white-male world, she has to fight harder to get recognized.

“My experience has been, and sadly I think this is still true today, that when a woman is elected to the Senate, she still has to prove that she belongs there, whereas when a man is elected to the Senate, it’s assumed that he belongs here,” she said.

[Trump dropped his 'face-lift' tweet in an already very tough political environment for women]

But leaving out women soon turned into a political problem for Republican leaders, too.

McConnell retreated behind closed doors to write the legislation, and soon, even the members of the original working group didn't know what was in the legislation. They unveiled a bill in June that received immediate skepticism from about a dozen senators, including Collins, Murkowski and Capito.

Republican leaders felt they had no choice but to negotiate the bill in secret to try to find a delicate balance between the party's conservative and moderate factions, which have very different ideas about government's role in health care. But in leaving senators out, they also left out their opinions. And men and women made clear they couldn't vote for a bill that didn't have X, Y or Z. In the end, it was women who publicly killed it.

But but but. We have to be careful not to conflate these senators' gender with why they opposed the health-care bill, as conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh seemed to do Tuesday night:


Daniel Dale

@ddale8
Limbaugh on Collins, Murkowski, Capito: "Three female leftists" are now running the Senate. http://hotair.com/archives/2017/07/18/rush-health-care-implosion-senate-now-run-three-female-leftists/

8:50 PM - Jul 18, 2017
Rush on health-care implosion: The Senate is now being run by three female leftists
Divisions.

hotair.com
208
162 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Female Republicans' concerns were much the same as their male colleagues' concerns about the legislation: It would have cut Medicaid too much. It raised premiums on the elderly and sick. It left rural hospitals without a safety net. Murkowski and Collins said they wouldn't vote for a bill that defunded women's health-care through Planned Parenthood.

“This bill would make sweeping and deep cuts in the Medicaid program, which has been a safety-net program on the books for more than 50 years,” Collins told ABC News on Sunday.

If there's a lesson in all this, it's that when trying to overhaul a major social program, perspectives matter.

neptuneblue
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2018 07:41 pm
@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:


And it was Senate Republican women, originally left out of the process, who killed it.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) on Capitol Hill last month. (Melina Mara/The Washington Post)
Let's rewind to explain why the Senate's five Republican women weren't originally involved in crafting a health-care bill. Republican leaders have been trying to write a bill that could pass an ideologically divided Senate since May, when House Republicans barely passed a controversial — and largely unpopular — piece of legislation. Senate leadership promptly threw that in the trash.

Instead, Republicans set up a group of about a dozen lawmakers to come up with something more moderate. None of them were women. Republican aides stressed that the group was soon opened to any GOP senator who wanted to participate.

Leaving women out of the negotiations for legislation that affects half the population in a very intimate way was a huge optics blunder for Republicans. It underscored the party's lack of diversity, especially in the Senate, where 47 out of 52 Republicans are men.

Meet the all-male coalition that worked on the Senate’s health-care bill
Senate coalitions formed to vie for their health-care interests. One of the more controversial groups included the GOP's Senate leadership - and no women. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)


0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2018 07:49 pm
@neptuneblue,
I accept that Neptune has a valid point. The Republicans in the Senate blundered by not including a woman in their negotiations over healthcare.

She is correct on this point.
neptuneblue
 
  3  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2018 08:09 pm
@maxdancona,
Annals of Internal Medicine Logo

Women's Health Policy in the United States: An American College of Physicians Position Paper FREE

Hilary Daniel, BS; Shari M. Erickson, MPH; Sue S. Bornstein, MD; for the Health and Public Policy Committee of the American College of Physicians *
Article, Author, and Disclosure Information

Appendix: Background and Rationale for Women's Health Policy in the United States: An American College of Physicians Position Paper

In this position paper, the American College of Physicians (ACP) examines the challenges women face in the U.S. health care system across their lifespans, including access to care; sex- and gender-specific health issues; variation in health outcomes compared with men; underrepresentation in research studies; and public policies that affect women, their families, and society. ACP puts forward several recommendations focused on policies that will improve the health outcomes of women and ensure a health care system that supports the needs of women and their families over the course of their lifespans.

Women face unique challenges over the course of their lifespans regarding their physical health, interactions with the health care system, and roles in society. They make up more than half of the U.S. population and are likely to live longer than men—women aged 85 years or older outnumber their male counterparts nearly 2 to 1 (1). Women use the health care system as patients, caregivers, and family representatives and can be particularly affected by costs, access issues, discriminatory policies, and lack of representation in biomedical and health outcomes research.

Both sex- and gender-specific issues affect women's health. Women may differ from men in disease expression, reaction to medications, or care management plans. They are more likely to be diagnosed or afflicted with certain diseases and conditions (including chronic or autoimmune diseases), and 38% of women have 1 or more chronic diseases, compared with 30% of men (2). Research suggests that risk factors related to chronic disease (such as diabetes, high cholesterol, and cardiovascular disease) are becoming more prevalent in women of reproductive age (3). Women also have unique mental health issues and depression, such as postpartum or perimenopausal depression. Women of diverse race/ethnicity, as well as women in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, intersex, or asexual (LGBTQIA) community, face greater health disparities than the general population, compounding specific issues in women's health.

Access to reproductive health care and health insurance has been and continues to be a barrier for women. Women in the United States are more likely to be covered by health insurance as a dependent (24% of women aged 19 to 64 years) than men, putting a woman at greater risk for losing coverage if she becomes widowed or divorced or if her spouse or partner loses his or her job (4). Uninsured women use fewer preventive services and are more likely to delay care because of cost (5). A woman's risk for being uninsured also varies by demographic, increasing to more than 20% for low-income women, those who lack a high school education, Hispanic/Latina women, and noncitizens (4). In addition, funding for family planning services and access to comprehensive reproductive health care are regularly disputed by state and federal legislatures, creating uncertainties and potential disparities around access to reproductive care.

As the health care system evolves, stakeholders must consider how to integrate women's health needs into policy discussion and capitalize on opportunities to improve the health of women, their families, and society. The American College of Physicians (ACP) makes 7 recommendations that aim to improve overall well-being throughout all stages of a woman's life and to address public policy issues that may result in barriers to health care access. The full position paper, including the expanded background and policy rationale, is in the Appendix.

Methods

This policy paper was drafted by ACP's Health and Public Policy Committee, which is charged with addressing issues that affect the health care of the U.S. public and the practice of internal medicine and its subspecialties. The authors reviewed available studies, reports, and surveys related to women's health from PubMed and Google Scholar between 1990 and 2017 and relevant news articles, policy documents, Web sites, and other sources. Recommendations were based on reviewed literature and input from ACP's Board of Governors, Board of Regents, Council of Early Career Physicians, Council of Resident/Fellow Members, Council of Student Members, and Council of Subspecialty Societies and nonmember experts in the field. The policy paper and related recommendations were reviewed and approved by the ACP Board of Regents on 16 April 2018. Financial support for the development of this position paper came exclusively from the ACP operating budget.

Positions and Recommendations

1. ACP believes that internists are well-suited to provide high-quality women's health care and that clinicians in all specialties and fields, including internal medicine, who care for women should receive appropriate training in health issues of particular relevance to the population of women seen in their practice setting. Training should emphasize both primary and comprehensive care of women, such as office gynecology, as well as the internist's role in team-based care for complex issues.

2. ACP believes that it is essential for women to have access to affordable, comprehensive, nondiscriminatory public or private health care coverage that includes evidence-based care over the course of their lifespans. Health insurers should not be allowed to charge women higher premiums or impose higher cost sharing on women because of their sex or gender.

3. ACP believes in respect for the principle of patient autonomy on matters affecting patients' individual health and reproductive decision-making rights, including about types of contraceptive methods they use and whether or not to continue a pregnancy as defined by existing constitutional law. Accordingly, ACP opposes government restrictions that would erode or abrogate a woman's right to continue or discontinue a pregnancy. Women should have sufficient access to evidence-based family planning and sexual health information and the full range of medically accepted forms of contraception.

4. ACP opposes legislation or regulations that limit access to comprehensive reproductive health care by putting medically unnecessary restrictions on health care professionals or facilities.

5. ACP supports the goal of universal access to family and medical leave policies that provide a minimum period of 6 weeks' paid leave and calls for legislative or regulatory action at the federal, state, or local level to advance this goal.

6. ACP supports increased availability of effective screening tools for physicians or health care professionals treating survivors of intimate partner or sexual violence. ACP supports increased patient education about intimate partner and sexual violence and the availability of resources for those affected by these abuses.

7. ACP supports efforts to improve the representation of women's health in clinical research and close knowledge gaps related to specific women's health issues.

Summary

Although the greater medical community recognizes that biological and social factors lead to differences in disease expression and treatment between men and women, further consideration of sex and gender is needed in the health care system's broader approach to women's health. Women face unique health challenges across their lifespans in addition to their roles in maintaining healthy families and meeting the health care needs of children and seriously ill family members. Ensuring access to nondiscriminatory health care coverage, ensuring access to a broad range of evidence-based services for reproductive health care, supporting public policies that positively affect women and their families, and closing knowledge gaps are essential to improving the overall health and well-being of women in the United States.

Appendix: Background and Rationale for Women's Health Policy in the United States: An American College of Physicians Position Paper

For the purpose of this paper, “women” and “female” refer to women of any cultural, racial, or ethnic background whose country of residence is the United States and who are primarily affected by U.S. regulations and laws. Many women's health issues are global, such as prevalence of certain types of cancer, reproductive and maternal health, behavioral and mental health, and violence against women. ACP acknowledges that certain cultural, political, and historical traditions affect the lives and health of women around the world. Female genital cutting, child marriage, and rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and HIV/AIDS (6) continue to be significant concerns for women globally and require further dedicated analysis and policy considerations outside the scope of this paper.

Sex- and Gender-Specific Disease Issues for Women

Women and men differ in susceptibility, presentation, and expression of disease as a result of biological, social, and behavioral influences. Sex, the biological difference between men and women, and gender, the social constructs and behaviors associated with the sexes, can affect a woman's health (7). Women report a higher prevalence of disability than men (24.4% vs. 19.8%), and women account for 54 million of the 100 million Americans living with 1 or more chronic diseases (8, 9). Major issue areas for women include cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, cancer, and mental or behavioral health. Compared with men, women are more likely to die within a year of a heart attack (10), more likely to delay going to the emergency department with cardiac symptoms, and less likely to receive aggressive prescription regimens (11). Women with diabetes are at higher risk for cardiovascular disease than men with diabetes (12) and are less likely to receive preventive care (13). Although women are less likely to be diagnosed with cancer, they are more likely to survive (14). Research shows that over the past 4 decades, the incidence rate of new cases of lung cancer has decreased 32% for men but increased 94% for women (15).

Women are 70% more likely than men to have depression (16). Psychological distress associated with balancing work and family can cause women to delay accessing health care compared with women who do not report this type of distress (17). Gender-based expectations also influence psychiatric care. More than half of women believe that depression is “a normal part of aging” (18). Social determinants can affect whether a woman has maternal depression, and mothers who live in poverty are 3 times more likely to have depression than those who do not (19). Women also face different challenges with substance use disorders from men: They respond differently to substances and can have more cravings and relapse after treatment or use drugs for less time before becoming addicted (20).
Health Issues for Special Populations

Racial/ethnic minorities and LGBTQIA women are more likely to encounter health care disparities than non-Hispanic, heterosexual white women. Women in racial/ethnic minorities face more challenges in accessing and receiving appropriate care than the general population. For example, American Indians and Alaska Natives have the lowest rates of mammography screenings, and rates among African American women, Asian women, and women with disabilities are also lower than in the general population (21, 22). Lesbians have higher rates of polycystic ovary syndrome than heterosexual women and may be at slightly higher risk for breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancer. However, they are less likely to get routine mammograms or cervical cancer screening. Women in the LGBTQIA population are also less likely to perceive themselves as at risk for STIs (23) and may be less likely to report instances of intimate partner violence (IPV) to authorities (24). Health disparities faced by LGBTQIA women can be compounded by race/ethnicity. Transgender women also face challenges in the health care system, including discriminatory coverage practices by insurers, difficulties regarding clinical competency on transgender health issues, and traditional gender norms that affect how society views and treats these women (25).

Reproductive Health Care

Women's reproductive health care includes several components related to the reproductive processes and systems of women across their lifespans. These may include but are not limited to miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, pregnancy termination, sterilization, and contraceptive methods (26). However, significant attention is paid to reproductive health during the years in which women may become pregnant. Family planning is the entry point to the health care system and allows individuals and families to plan and space pregnancies. It also includes other services, such as breast and pelvic examinations, screening for breast and cervical cancer, efforts to test for and prevent STIs and HIV, and pregnancy diagnosis and counseling (27). Between 2006 and 2010, a total of 43 million women aged 15 to 44 years reported having received family planning or a related medical service in the past 12 months. Approximately half of the 18% of women who received such care at a clinic did so at a Title X–funded clinic. Use of Title X clinics is more common among women who live in a nonmetropolitan area or are black, Hispanic/Latina, below the poverty level, or uninsured (28).

Contraception

Contraceptive methods are used to prevent pregnancy and include short-acting hormonal birth control, barrier methods, long-acting reversible contraception (LARC), and emergency contraception. In addition to preventing pregnancy, some methods help relieve physical symptoms associated with the menstrual cycle. Approximately 14% of women who use short-acting hormonal birth control do so exclusively for noncontraceptive purposes (29). Adolescent girls and young women can be prescribed birth control pills for irregular menstrual periods, cramps, acne, endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, or primary ovarian insufficiency (30). Although the safety, efficacy, and contraindications of various types of contraception have been established, access challenges remain. Some emergency contraception is available over the counter, but price, confusion about regulations for selling the drug, and inconsistency about which pharmacies stock it can make access difficult (31).

Pregnancy and Childbirth

For many women, pregnancy and childbirth can be a positive experience. Women's health outcomes after the birth of a child are affected by preconception health, health through pregnancy, and postpartum care. Social determinants, such as income, education, and employment, also correlate with reproductive health and can result in inequalities (32). In both 2015 and 2016, nearly 4 million births were registered in the United States (33). However, the United States has the highest maternal mortality rate among developed countries and is the only developed nation where that rate continues to increase. Since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began tracking pregnancy-related deaths (those caused by complications of pregnancy), the maternal mortality rate has steadily increased from 7.2 deaths per 100 000 live births in 1987 to a high of 17.8 deaths per 100 000 live births in 2009 and 2011. Large racial disparities also exist: Between 2011 and 2013, a total of 12.7 white women died per 100 000 live births, compared with 43.5 black women (34). One review of maternal deaths found that nearly 60% of pregnancy-related deaths were preventable (35). The 2 primary causes of death are cardiovascular disease and other medical noncardiovascular disease, indicating potential issues related to prenatal health or preventable disease.

Some women may determine that they wish not to continue their pregnancy, and in 2014 (the most recent year with available data), approximately 652 000 legal induced abortions were recorded in the United States, most (91.5%) of which occurred at fewer than 13 weeks' gestation (36). Carrying a child to delivery or choosing not to continue a pregnancy may have short- and long-term positive or negative effects on a woman. Legal abortion is shown to be safe for the woman (37), and a recent 5-year study of women's mental health and well-being after seeking abortion services showed that those who are denied wanted abortion services are at greater risk for negative mental health outcomes initially than those who want and receive an abortion and that those feelings generally improve over time (38). Each woman's experience in choosing not to continue a pregnancy is unique and influenced by various factors in her life, which may manifest in different ways across her lifespan.

IPV

Intimate partner violence is “a pattern of assaultive and coercive behaviors that may include inflicted physical injury, psychological abuse, sexual assault, progressive isolation, stalking, deprivation, intimidation, and threats” (39). Perpetrators of IPV can be current or former spouses or partners or those who wish to be in an intimate relationship with a person. Approximately 20 persons per minute are abused by an intimate partner in the United States (40). Intimate partner violence can affect survivors' physical and mental health in the short and long term and is associated with no fewer than 40 negative physical, reproductive, psychological, social, or health behavior outcomes (41). Although both men and women can experience IPV, women are more likely to be abused. Between 1994 and 2010, 4 in 5 survivors of IPV were female (42).

Women are more likely to be killed by an intimate partner or someone they know than by a stranger, and between 67% and 80% of intimate partner homicides involve physical abuse of a woman before the murder regardless of which partner is killed (43). Of all female homicide victims, 64% are killed by someone they know, most frequently (45%) by a spouse, former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend (44). Conversely, 16% of male homicide victims in 2007 were killed by a family member or intimate partner (44). Firearms may also increase the probability of death in IPV incidents: Women are 5 time more likely to be killed by their abuser if he or she owns a firearm (45).

Gender-based violence also predicts suicidality in women and can be connected with substance use. In a survey of more than 3000 persons by the National Center on Domestic Violence, Trauma & Mental Health, 26% of participants reported using alcohol or drugs to self-medicate. These participants also reported that their partners or former partners used the participant's substance use to discourage them from seeking help or threatened to use the information to undermine their credibility with authorities (46).

Sexual Violence

Sexual violence refers to crimes that include sexual assault and rape. Women are much more likely to be survivors of sexual assault than men. The National Violence Against Women Survey found that 1 in 6 women (17%) and 1 in 33 men (3%) reported being survivors of attempted or completed rape during their lifetime (47). Sexual violence can have physical and psychological consequences. Victims of sexual violence are also more likely to engage in high-risk behaviors that increase the potential for future attacks (48).

Parental and Medical Leave Policies

The United States is the only developed nation and 1 of 2 countries out of 185 surveyed by the International Labour Organization that does not offer some degree of paid maternity leave; it is 1 of only 4 high-wealth countries without paid paternity or parental leave (49). As of March 2016, only 13% of workers in the private sector had access to paid family leave, which includes parental leave or leave taken to care for a seriously ill family member (50). In addition, the rate at which new mothers with access to maternity leave use that leave has remained stagnant. A recent analysis showed no significant trend upward or downward in women who took maternity leave between 1994 and 2015 (51). The analysis showed that 47.5% of women who took maternity leave in 2015 were compensated, an average increase of only 0.65% over nearly 2 decades.

As many as 75% of all caregivers are women, and female caregivers spend as much as 50% more time providing care than men (52). Women reported making 27% of decisions affecting their children, 20% affecting their spouse or partner, and 6% affecting adult relatives (53). Those who care for a close relative are at higher risk for poor health due to physical and emotional stress associated with the caregiver role. Stress associated with long-term caregiving can include depression and anxiety, a weakened immune system, obesity, higher risk for chronic diseases, and problems with memory (54). Seventeen percent of caregivers reported their health as “fair” or “poor,” compared with 10% of the general adult population (55). Caregiving caused a change in the work situation of 6 in 10 caregivers, including reducing work hours, taking unpaid leave, or receiving warnings about performance or attendance (55).

No federal laws require a standard level of paid parental or medical leave. The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), signed into law in 1993, offers employees who meet certain requirements up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave each year and requires employers to maintain the employee's health benefits during that time (56). Employees of all public agencies, public and private schools (elementary and secondary), and companies with 50 or more employees can use FMLA for the birth and care of a newborn child, adoption of a child, or foster care; to care for an immediate family member with a serious health condition; or if the employee cannot work because of a serious health condition. The FMLA defines “immediate family member” as a spouse, child, or parent but excludes grandparents and family members through marriage or domestic partnership (56).

California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New York, Washington, and the District of Columbia have passed laws requiring employers to make paid leave available for the birth or adoption of a child, for a disability (which often includes pregnancy), or to care for an ailing family member with a serious medical condition. California, New Jersey, and New York are the only states that currently offer paid family leave to residents, and Washington and the District of Columbia have passed laws that will take effect at a later date (57). Programs in California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and New York are structured to coordinate with existing temporary disability benefits to support a longer duration.

Recommendations and Positions

1. ACP believes that internists are well-suited to provide high-quality women's health care and that clinicians in all specialties and fields, including internal medicine, who care for women should receive appropriate training in health issues of particular relevance to the population of women seen in their practice setting. Training should emphasize both primary and comprehensive care of women, such as office gynecology, as well as the internist's role in team-based care for complex issues.

Internists are trained to diagnose and treat basic to complex chronic illnesses and are well-suited to provide care for adolescent and adult women. However, not all internal medicine physicians feel prepared to address some important issues in women's health. Enhanced or specialized training in such issues can improve the overall care of women across their lifespans, as well as improve access to routine services. More robust consideration in medical school, residency, and fellowship of the unique health needs of women will help physicians provide care to the largest number of women (including adolescent and aging women) and increase awareness of the most common causes of female mortality in their patient populations.

Primary care has been identified as an avenue to increase access to certain reproductive health services, such as LARC, in areas where access is restricted by government intervention or lack of women's health clinics or providers. However, barriers prevent these proposals from translating into policy changes. A survey of New York City physicians' views about providing LARC to adolescents identified both knowledge gaps and limited access to the device as reasons why the physicians rarely counseled their patients about LARC (58). These barriers should be addressed to encourage LARC uptake. Insurance reimbursement can be inadequate, and although the device should be covered under the contraception coverage mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), not all insurers comply (59). Promoting the safety of these methods and training in LARC insertion among primary care physicians and patients and addressing issues about same-day availability of LARC in primary care settings can enhance access and potentially increase use of this highly effective contraception.

The health needs of women throughout their lifespans require the specialized training of various health care professionals. In addition to preventive care and the treatment and management of disease, primary care physicians traditionally play a role in preconception and postpartum care. They can help women address obesity, blood sugar, diabetes, and cardiovascular issues that may lead to preeclampsia, all which may increase the risk for adverse health effects during pregnancy. Additional opportunities for training on acute care management of pregnant women and in the immediate postpartum period in the hospital setting should also be explored, particularly in light of high maternal mortality rates.
Women must have access to and a longitudinal relationship with a primary care physician who understands a woman's individual health needs at each stage of her life, as well as subspecialists who are able to care for the specific health-related issues women may face. Internists can treat various illnesses and conditions, conduct examinations, administer vaccines, and provide preventive care, but they may not be properly trained to care for women having high-risk pregnancies or provide the distinct perspective of pediatricians treating young women or geriatricians treating older women.

Health care professionals, working with other members in a medical practice, support women's increased access to care and help create a partnership between a patient and members of her care team. A 2013 position paper (60) detailed the need to enable greater collaboration, communication, and cooperation to better serve patient needs and provide the best possible care for all patients.

2. ACP believes that it is essential for women to have access to affordable, comprehensive, nondiscriminatory public or private health care coverage that includes evidence-based care over the course of their lifespans. Health insurers should not be allowed to charge women higher premiums or impose higher cost sharing on women because of their sex or gender.
Before the ACA was passed, one third of women who applied for a health plan independently were turned down, charged a higher premium, or excluded because of previous health problems (61). A report analyzing state-by-state coverage in the individual market before full implementation of all ACA provisions also showed that coverage for female-specific health care services, such as maternity care, was severely lacking (62).

The ACA contains many provisions that specifically support women's health and access to health care coverage. It requires plans to contain certain essential health benefits (including maternity care and preventive services) and to cover preventive care with no cost sharing (including well-woman visits, preconception care, and human papillomavirus testing). The ACA also ensures access to all contraceptive methods approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration with no cost sharing. Efforts to undercut the ACA's provisions, weaken or eliminate its essential health benefits, and allow employers and individuals to purchase plans that do not cover essential health benefits will negatively affect women and women's health care.
Additional policies are required to ensure that every American, including women, has health insurance coverage for the full range of evidence-based care he or she requires to remain healthy and obtain treatment when unhealthy. Such coverage should include prevention and wellness services, screening for conditions typically or exclusively found among women, family planning and reproductive care, contraception, preconception care, maternity care, postpartum care, care throughout menopause, mental and behavioral health care, substance use disorder treatment, and prevention and management of chronic diseases.

Access to health insurance coverage is important in supporting not only a woman's physical health but also her financial stability (63). Women pay more out of pocket than men overall because they use more health care. Therefore, access to affordable coverage that appropriately covers all aspects of women's health will spare women the choice between getting preventive or immediate health care services and paying for basic necessities like housing and food. Low-income, diverse, and younger women are more likely to be uninsured and be negatively affected by high out-of-pocket costs for health care. ACP also strongly opposes efforts to cap or cut Medicaid or convert it into a block grant program. Two thirds of adult Medicaid beneficiaries are women (64), and the program paid for nearly half of all U.S. births before the ACA was implemented (64). Inadequate or reduced funding forces programs to limit the number of eligible patients or the benefits they receive.

3. ACP believes in respect for the principle of patient autonomy on matters affecting patients' individual health and reproductive decision-making rights, including about types of contraceptive methods they use and whether or not to continue a pregnancy as defined by existing constitutional law. Accordingly, ACP opposes government restrictions that would erode or abrogate a woman's right to continue or discontinue a pregnancy. Women should have sufficient access to evidence-based family planning and sexual health information and the full range of medically accepted forms of contraception.

ACP believes that a woman has the right to make her own decisions, in consultation with her physician or health care professional, on matters affecting her individual health. Reproductive decision-making rights should be based on the ethical principle of respect for patient autonomy. Women should have access to the health care services they may need in their lifetimes, including reproductive health care and contraception. They should feel empowered to make decisions around pregnancy that are grounded in evidence-based information and reflect their own circumstances, which may result in a woman delivering and raising a child, choosing adoption, or choosing abortion. Limiting access to evidence-based medicine greatly affects a woman's ability to make her own health care choices. Reproductive care is a key component of women's health, and limiting access can have lasting repercussions on a woman's physical and mental health, economic well-being, and social mobility.

One of the most complex, controversial, and politicized issues in women's health care is access to comprehensive reproductive health services, specifically abortion. Such services may include but are not limited to management of miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, pregnancy termination, sterilization, and contraception (26). The landmark decisions by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey established the current legal frameworks that regulate a woman's right to abortion. Since 1973, Roe v. Wade has asserted a woman's right to privacy regarding medical decisions without interference by the government, including the decision whether or not to continue a pregnancy before fetal viability, but it did not determine abortion as an absolute right. Roe v. Wade established a framework in which decisions about abortion in the first trimester should be left to the medical judgment of a woman and her physician but in which states may have a greater interest in the health of the mother during the second and third trimesters and could impose stronger regulations (second trimester) or regulations and bans (third trimester) (65). The decision in Planned Parenthood of Eastern Pennsylvania v. Casey in 1992 established the undue burden standard, which allows states to regulate abortion procedures in the first trimester as long as they do not put a “substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability,” superseding the language in the Roe v. Wade decision (66). Current law also states that exceptions must be made to preserve the life of the mother.

Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's rulings, abortion remains a subject of intense debate among the American public, federal and state lawmakers, and jurists. ACP asserts that a woman's right over health care decisions for matters affecting her individual health must include the right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy. However, it recognizes and respects that individuals, including physicians and patients, may have deeply held personal beliefs that inform their views on abortion or contraception rooted in how they perceive the ontological or moral status of a fetus. Ethical, public policy, and religious or spiritual arguments raise questions about the nature of what it means to be a person. For example, those who support constitutional personhood (the concept that from the moment of fertilization a zygote is considered a fetus and should possess the same legal status as any other human being, with some or all constitutional rights) would oppose any type of abortion and some types of contraception (67), whereas others may oppose the procedure after fetal viability. Although the debate is often viewed through the lens of ardent support or opposition, attitudes and opinions about if and when abortion is acceptable vary (68, 69). ACP supports the current legal framework that allows women to obtain abortions before fetal viability or in later stages of pregnancy to protect the health of the mother and opposes efforts that would further restrict a woman's constitutional right to privacy in medical decision making, as upheld by the Supreme Court.

Supporting access to family planning services and all forms of contraception is essential to reducing the rate of unintended pregnancy and demand for abortion services. ACP reaffirms its support for federal, state, and local family planning grants for educational and clinical services. It continues to support evidence-based family planning and sex education programs, which can help to disseminate information about contraceptive methods, the social and economic impact of unintended pregnancy, and prevention of STIs. Access to family planning clinics that provide essential health care services (such as STI and HIV testing) continues to be a major issue for women, particularly those who are disadvantaged and at higher risk for unintended pregnancy. Evidence shows that rather than seeking care elsewhere when access to family planning services is limited, some women forgo preventive care or their usual contraceptive methods. An analysis of the effect of women's health clinic closures in Wisconsin and Texas showed that an increase of 100 miles to the nearest clinic decreased the rate of breast examinations by 11%, mammograms by 18%, and Papanicolaou tests by 18% (70). Exclusion of Planned Parenthood affiliates from the Texas Women's Health Program coincided with an increased rate of childbirth by women on Medicaid, suggesting that the exclusion may have prevented women from accessing family planning services (71).

4. ACP opposes legislation or regulations that limit access to comprehensive reproductive health care by putting medically unnecessary restrictions on health care professionals or facilities.

As of February 2018, laws in 23 states can be considered to go beyond what is necessary to ensure patient safety and may subject physicians to criminal or civil penalties if they violate the laws, some of which include regulation of the offices or sites where abortion procedures are performed. The safety of abortion procedures is well-established (37). Sixteen states have licensing standards that require clinics or offices providing abortions to meet state licensing standards for ambulatory surgical centers. In an amicus brief filed in opposition to a Texas law with such a requirement, the American Medical Association and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists called the requirement “devoid of any medical or scientific purpose” (72).

These state-level attempts to restrict access to comprehensive reproductive health services, including abortion, impose medically unnecessary regulations that can interfere with the patient–physician relationship and make it difficult for patients to access health care professionals or assistance at facilities that counsel on or offer abortion services. ACP opposes regulation of reproductive health care services that is not focused on patient safety or based in accepted science. Public health policy about women's reproductive health and health care services should first and foremost be based in clinical research, with an emphasis on health promotion, prevention of unintended pregnancy, and access to reproductive health services.

ACP strongly reaffirms the position that “laws and regulations should not mandate the content of what physicians may or may not say to patients or mandate the provision or withholding of information or care that, in the physician's clinical judgment and based on clinical evidence and the norms of the profession, are not necessary or appropriate for a particular patient at the time of a patient encounter” (73). These laws may interfere with the relationship between physicians and patients or make access to reproductive health care services or abortion extremely difficult or impossible. Physicians may personally choose not to provide certain reproductive services or information about these services if it conflicts with their moral or personal standards. However, they still have a duty to inform patients about care options and alternatives or refer them for information (so that patient rights are not constrained) and provide information that is evidence-based and free of personal bias (74).

5. ACP supports the goal of universal access to family and medical leave policies that provide a minimum period of 6 weeks' paid leave and calls for legislative or regulatory action at the federal, state, or local level to advance this goal.

Paid leave policies can improve health outcomes for women and their families, on whom a new child can have significant physical and emotional effects. The birthing process is physically taxing, and women continue to have physical and hormonal changes for weeks or months afterward. An analysis of mothers at various periods after childbirth showed a relationship between leave duration and decreases in depressive symptoms until 6 months postpartum (75). Paid maternity leave is associated with increased likelihood of breastfeeding initiation and continuation at 6 months compared with no paid leave (76). Breastfeeding can have positive health outcomes for both child and mother, including providing some protection from common childhood infections in a baby's first year of life, helping a woman recover after the birth, and reducing risk for breast or ovarian cancer (77, 78). In addition, paid parental leave for men can reduce stress on families and encourage father–child bonding (79).Guaranteeing at least 6 weeks' paid leave for both men
and women allows employees already experiencing major life changes to focus on their physical health and the health of their families without added stress. Such policies should include minimum standards for paid leave and dedicated funding to help employers provide such leave. Analyses of states with paid leave policies show an overall positive effect. A study of California's policy showed that access to the benefits increased new mothers' leave by 3 weeks, positively affected children and mothers, and did not cause problems for most employers (around 90% reported positive effects) (80). Paid leave makes economic sense for employers as well as employees. Employers who offer paid leave are more likely to retain employees and more attractive to job seekers. In New Jersey, approximately 76% of workers view the law favorably, and businesses claim they have adjusted well (81).
Despite the availability of FMLA to about 60% of the American workforce, some caregivers still cannot afford to take unpaid time off, and existing public policies do not sufficiently support women or their families in a way that does not risk economic stability or position in the workforce. Paid leave policies should ensure increased flexibility for caregivers to care for family members, including children (biological or adopted), spouses, partners, parents, parents-in-law, or grandparents. Policymakers should also consider revising FMLA to reflect the current workforce and more flexible family structures that may include grandparents or in-laws. Reforms should be structured to minimize disruption for employers while providing the same standard of job protection for employees and consideration of the financial hardships and stress experienced by caregivers and their families.

ACP recognizes that universal access to at least 6 weeks of paid family leave may bring unique challenges for smaller employers, including private physician practices and nonprofit organizations. Therefore, legislation to expand paid leave should consider potential burdens on employers while upholding the intent of the programs through dedicated funding, necessary accommodation, and assistance to help small businesses transition to a minimum of 6 weeks of paid leave.

Additional studies are needed to determine the optimal amount of paid time off to maximize the associated health benefits for employees; discourage the “motherhood penalty,” in which women face bias and wage gaps resulting from their potential or actual taking of leave; examine whether paid leave policies should be integrated into or administered by unemployment insurance programs; balance the economic benefit for employers against costs; determine an appropriate level of imbursement during leave; and research additional mechanisms that may help finance paid leave, such as payroll taxes or reforms of existing programs (for example, Social Security) (82).

6. ACP supports increased availability of effective screening tools for physicians or health care professionals treating survivors of intimate partner or sexual violence. ACP supports increased patient education about intimate partner and sexual violence and the availability of resources for those affected by these abuses.

The physical, mental, and behavioral health effects of IPV are well-documented, including increased morbidity and mortality. Unfortunately, many victims of IPV or sexual violence go unrecognized. Primary care practices provide a confidential environment and private space that is particularly important in light of the low reporting rate of IPV against women. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force rates screening for IPV in pregnant women but is currently reviewing that recommendation as well as screening recommendations for elder abuse and abuse of vulnerable adults (83). The rate of screening for IPV in primary care offices ranges from 1.5% to 12% (84).

Many physician barriers may make identifying or screening for IPV challenging. These include feelings that discussing the topic is “too close to home,” personal discomfort with the topic, a belief that asking about IPV is too personal, lack of education and training, lack of time to screen and respond, a belief that physicians should not address IPV, and fear of repercussions from mandatory reporting laws in their state. Institutional barriers also prevent IPV from being recognized and addressed, including lack of training, legal issues involving insurance discrimination, mandatory reporting requirements, and lack of diagnostic or procedural codes for violence. Finally, research on IPV is limited by concerns about ethics, safety, and privacy; lack of uniform or standard definitions for IPV; and an overall lack of funding for research on violence (85).

An emerging area of interest is how to develop effective screening measures for potential perpetrators of violence, including IPV and sexual violence. There is little empirical evidence on methodology, best practices, or effectiveness of this type of intervention. Despite this, several measurement tools exist, including the Abuse Within Intimate Relationships Scale, Abusive Behavior Inventory–Partner Form, Physical Abuse of Partner Scale, Revised Conflict Tactics Scale, and Non-Physical Abuse of Partner Scale. In an effort to address prevention of IPV and sexual violence, additional research should investigate whether these methods are effective in preventing or reducing incidents of IPV or sexual violence.
Sexual violence and IPV are very sensitive subjects, and not all victims will feel comfortable raising these issues, even with trusted health care professionals in a private setting. Creating an environment in which awareness of the topic is increased can help the patient feel more comfortable discussing any issue they may have had. For patients who are not ready to disclose IPV to a clinician, primary care practices can improve awareness of and access to IPV resources by hanging posters and providing pamphlets, palm cards, and contact lists for national and local resources in the office or on their Web site. These resources should also include information for victims of human trafficking or sexual exploitation.

7. ACP supports efforts to improve the representation of women's health in clinical research and close knowledge gaps related to specific women's health issues.

Women's health research and its applications serve a broader societal purpose. Women make up more than half of the U.S. population, but these research gaps continue to contribute to disparities in health care treatment of women. Several troubling trends are affecting the overall survival of U.S. women, such as the decreasing life expectancy of lower-income white women (86), increasing rate of maternal mortality, prevalence of binge drinking among older women (87), increasing rate of STIs in older women, and increasing suicide rate among women (88). All women in the United States must have access to the best available health care—starting with a comprehensive understanding of the science behind women's health and health needs—as well as the resources necessary to effectively address women's health issues and take steps to reduce negative outcomes.

In 1985, a workgroup of the U.S. Public Health Service reported that the exclusion of women in research negatively affected the quality of knowledge related to women's health issues (89). Considerable efforts have been made since then through policy changes, regulations, and the establishment of offices of women's health in federal agencies to better support scientific research on women's health. However, clinical trial investigators do not necessarily distinguish sex or gender differences in their data. Large research gaps therefore remain in understanding how women react to or are affected by certain medications. Despite advances in certain areas since 1985, progress is lacking in unintended pregnancy, maternal morbidity and mortality, autoimmune diseases, alcohol and drug addiction, lung cancer, gynecologic cancer other than cervical cancer, nonmalignant gynecologic disorders, and Alzheimer disease (90). In addition, certain groups (particularly disadvantaged women) have not seen improved health outcomes in the areas where major progress has been made, namely breast cancer, cardiovascular disease, and cervical cancer.

Although efforts to increase female participation in clinical studies have improved representation of women in research generally, more attention should be focused on how sex and gender affect disease, disease treatment, and social factors (91) as well as disease expression, health outcomes, and treatment protocols. Gaps in women's health research not only are detrimental to the health of women but also prevent policymakers from properly addressing sex or gender in outcomes measures or understanding the return on federal investments into biomedical research. In a review of 2 decades of medical literature on the comparative effectiveness of treatments for coronary artery disease in women, 65% of articles were excluded because they did not report sex-specific data and only 17% of articles reported sex-specific outcomes (92).

Research must also reflect the broader demographic makeup of the United States, and efforts should include increased participation of women of different races or ethnicities and LGBTQIA women in research studies. Demographic changes in the overall population show that those who identify as racial/ethnic minorities make up a larger part of the population than previously, and research must adequately represent them. Despite progress in female representation in studies, some racial minorities—especially African American or black women—remain underrepresented in most drug development programs (93). This may prevent generalizability of clinical trial results in this population.

Representation of LGBTQIA persons should also be addressed. Lesbians and gay men are sometimes excluded from clinical trials on the basis of their sexual orientation, particularly in studies of sexual health or function, without scientific reasoning (94). Lesbian, bisexual, or transgender women may also be hesitant to participate in research studies because of reluctance to share their sexual orientation or gender identity status with researchers due to concerns about privacy; being judged; potential lack of cultural competence by researchers; or avoiding stigma, harassment, or discrimination (95). Although excluding certain persons from clinical research who are not in the target population of the study is not uncommon, researchers should ensure that this is not done in a discriminatory manner.

Conclusion

Health care is important to women's personal, social, and economic well-being. Policymakers must take into account the health needs of women over their lifespans and take action to strengthen the health care system and societal structures to support women and their families. Ensuring access to care that accounts for the unique health needs of women, ensuring affordable and nondiscriminatory health care coverage, improving awareness of issues particularly affecting women, and ensuring that women's health care decisions are respected are all steps on the path to improving women's health in the United States. Addressing these issues will advance the goal of achieving health equity among all citizens and will improve health care outcomes for women of future generations.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2018 08:19 pm
@neptuneblue,
The ACP policy paper contains a pretty balanced and reasonable view on the subject of woman's health. I think I agree with all the positions that they take.
0 Replies
 
neptuneblue
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2018 08:24 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:


Of course you do. This is partisan political propaganda. Republicans bad. Democrats good. I get it. You haven't answered what you would say to Republicans who are women; are they part of this "war on women"?

Republicans throw mud at Democrats. Democrats throw mud at Republicans. What's the point. This is not a serious topic.


Care to re-evaluate your stance?
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2018 08:32 pm
@neptuneblue,
I'm all ears.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2018 09:07 pm
@neptuneblue,
No, I don't care to change my stance.

Do you disagree with my opinion that Republicans and Democrats are throwing mud at each other? Saying that women should have the right to make the decision to carry a pregnancy to term is civil. Saying that a fetus is a human life and abortion should be illegal is also civil.

Saying that people who support abortion don't value life is incivil. Saying that people who want abortion to be illegal are part of a war on women is also incivil. You can discuss your opinions about an issue without attacking the people on the other side.

You probably know women who are pro-life (i.e. believe that abortion should restricted legally), yet agree with you on other social issues. Could you sit down and talk to them civilly without attacking them?
glitterbag
 
  3  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2018 09:22 pm
Don't take the bait Neptune, he won't believe you.
0 Replies
 
neptuneblue
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2018 09:25 pm
@maxdancona,
I say KILL the ******. It's invading MY body, MY way of life and it's a parasite not any different than a bacteria that can be killed with a small pill my doctor legally prescribes to me.

Now, can we get back to the subject? Women's healthcare is under siege by Republican men. It's a major issue that needs addressed by co-sponsorship of our legislative representatives that will ensure women's health wellness for millions of women for generations.
maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2018 10:03 pm
@neptuneblue,
If every woman agreed with you, then you would have no problem pushing through your legislative priorities and blocking theirs.

There are lots of women who vote Republican, and many women who are pro-life. Hillary lost after she referred to them as "deplorables".

You don't win elections by insulting or ignoring key voting blocks.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2018 10:07 pm
@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:

I say KILL the ******. It's invading MY body, MY way of life and it's a parasite not any different than a bacteria that can be killed with a small pill my doctor legally prescribes to me.

Now, can we get back to the subject? Women's healthcare is under siege by Republican men. It's a major issue that needs addressed by co-sponsorship of our legislative representatives that will ensure women's health wellness for millions of women for generations.


People have sex with you?
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2018 10:11 pm
@McGentrix,
"Invader"... "Parasite" The way Neptune describes a fetus is strangely similar to the way that Trump describes immigrants.
McGentrix
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2018 10:22 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

"Invader"... "Parasite" The way Neptune describes a fetus is strangely similar to the way that Trump describes immigrants.


The Polish said something similar about the Nazi's too.
0 Replies
 
neptuneblue
 
  3  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2018 04:31 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
No, I don't care to change my stance.


Factual evidence has been laid out before you. Republican women were excluded in any legislative committee outlining healthcare programs. It's not throwing mud, it's FACTS. Maybe facts just don't enter into your argument.

Women's healthcare is NOT just discussing abortion.

Why do you think that it's ok for insurance companies to exclude payment for preventive screenings for cancer and it's ok for a pharmacist to not fill a legally prescribed medicine for hormone replacement and it's ok if employers openly discriminate by refusing to offer a benefit package to women that covers comprehensive reproductive medical coverage?

I don't think that's ok. And that's why I'm fighting for women's healthcare reform.

0 Replies
 
neptuneblue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2018 05:40 am
Mapping the Gaps: Gender Differences in Preventive Cardiovascular Care among Managed Care Members in Four Metropolitan Areas

Chloe E. Bird, PhD'Correspondence information about the author PhD Chloe E. BirdEmail the author PhD Chloe E. Bird, Michael Manocchia, PhD, Brooke Tomblin, MPH, Peggy Payne, MA, Mahesh Kulakodlu, MS, Emily Iacolo, MS, Allen M. Fremont, MD, PhD

Prior research documents gender gaps in cardiovascular risk management, with women receiving poorer quality routine care on average, even in managed care systems. Although population health management tools and quality improvement efforts have led to better overall care quality and narrowing of racial/ethnic gaps for a variety of measures, we sought to quantify persistent gender gaps in cardiovascular risk management and to assess the performance of routinely used commercial population health management tools in helping systems narrow gender gaps.

Methods

Using 2013 through 2014 claims and enrollment data from more than 1 million members of a large national health insurance plan, we assessed performance on seven evidence-based quality measures for the management of coronary artery disease and diabetes mellitus, a cardiac risk factor, across and within four metropolitan areas. We used logistic regression to adjust for region, demographics, and risk factors commonly tracked in population health management tools.

Findings

Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol control (LDL < 100 mg/dL) rates were 5 and 15 percentage points lower for women than men with diabetes mellitus (p < .0001), and coronary artery disease (p < .0001), respectively. Adjusted analyses showed women were more likely to have gaps in LDL control with an odds ratio of 1.31 (95% confidence interval, 1.27–1.38) in diabetes mellitus and 1.88 (95% confidence interval, 1.65–2.10) in coronary artery disease.

Conclusions

Given our findings that gender gaps persist across both clinical and geographic variation, we identified additional steps health plans can take to reduce disparities. For measures where gaps have been consistently identified, we recommend that gender-stratified quality reporting and analysis be used to complement widely used algorithms to identify individuals with unmet needs for referral to population health and wellness behavior support programs.

Gender differences in quality of care in the management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes, a major CVD risk factor, are well documented (Bird et al., 2007, Buja et al., 2014, Chou and Scholle et al., 2007, Chou and Wong et al., 2007, Larkin et al., 2010, Li et al., 2016, Lucas et al., 2006, Rathore et al., 2000, Tabenkin et al., 2010, Vaccarino et al., 2001) despite CVD being the leading cause of death for both women and men in the United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health & Statistics, 2015). The disparity in women's CVD care runs counter to findings among other diseases in which women traditionally obtain better care than men, a phenomenon commonly attributed to greater health seeking behavior among women (Asch et al., 2006). Improvements in population health management tools and quality improvement efforts to narrow gaps will rely on the performance of routinely used population health management tools.

A number of studies have assessed gender differences in cardiovascular care screening for cardiac risk factors, treatment with medications, and control of risk factors (Bird et al., 2007, Bird et al., 2014, Chou and Scholle et al., 2007, Chou and Wong et al., 2007, Ferrara et al., 2008, Gouni-Berthold et al., 2008, Kautzky-Willer et al., 2010, Magee et al., 2015, Ruckert et al., 2012, Schultz et al., 2005, Vimalananda et al., 2011). Past studies indicate that women generally receive fewer preventive cardiovascular services compared with men (Correa-de-Araujo, McDermott, & Moy, 2006), and that related conditions such as diabetes are often suboptimally managed in practice (Berlowitz et al., 1998, Hyman and Pavlik, 2001, Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, 2001, Larkin et al., 2010, National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA), 2015, Tabenkin et al., 2010). Yet evidence of women's higher risk of microvascular disease (Bairey Merz et al., 2006), and the greater impact of diabetes on risk of coronary death (Lee et al., 2000, Legato, 2000, Liao et al., 1993), as well as gender differences in surgical outcomes, suggest the need to improve quality of care for CVD management and risk reduction among women in ambulatory practice (Mehta et al., 2016). Moreover, recent research suggests that, even with similar clinical care, women obtain poorer outcomes and may need more aggressive treatment (Magee et al., 2015).

Health plans and provider groups typically assess preventive care services using standardized evidence-based medicine (EBM) measures, such as the NCQA's HEDIS scores (Hyman and Pavlik, 2001, National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA), 2015). These quality measures assess the percentage of patients without contraindications who are receiving indicated care in areas of clinical agreement. Despite growing evidence of gender differences in cardiovascular care, most health plans have not historically stratified quality of care measures by gender, nor are they required to do so by organizations monitoring quality of care such as the NCQA or the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). More recently, the CMS Office of Minority Health and RAND Corporation (2017) published a report on Gender Disparities in Health Care in Medicare Advantage, reflecting increased interest in transparency in their routine reporting on the medical care received by Medicare beneficiaries.

Managed care plans and large physician provider groups now routinely use sophisticated population health management tools designed to help health care systems improve outcomes and consequent scores on evidence-based quality measures. These tools come in a variety of forms, but the most common monitor and apply algorithms to information from medical claims data, and in some cases electronic medical records, to identify individuals or subgroups of patients who have chronic conditions and may benefit from additional clinical support from the plan or physician group. For example, a plan member with coronary artery disease (CAD) and apparent gaps in care, such as poorly controlled low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and/or no recent laboratory tests or visits with their provider, may receive reminders on being better connected with providers to support condition management. These reminders encourage the plan member to have relevant diagnostic tests and/or to support them in taking their medications properly. These members may also be offered educational materials or personal coaching related to their condition, making healthy lifestyle changes, or overcoming related challenges.

Ideally, population health tools and related support services not only help to ensure that members have good long-term outcomes (e.g., no heart attacks or strokes) or that plans and providers perform well on quality scores, but also that members receive needed support well before they enter a danger zone and require an emergency department visit or hospitalization. Chronically ill members who are hospitalized or visit the emergency department frequently may be flagged by some population health tools. However, these individuals are considered acutely ill or very high risk, and their care is typically managed by crisis management services, such as case management; they are not the focus of this article.

Our goal in this study was to examine whether gender differences in routine aspects of care and outcomes persist and whether commonly used population health management risk tools address men's and women's differential risk of not receiving evidence-based care. To address these questions, we assessed gender differences in quality of care using EBM performance rates on seven HEDIS-like measures among plan members with CAD and those with diabetes mellitus (DM) from four large metropolitan areas. We also assessed whether any gaps in care were explained by demographics, disease severity, or population health management tools.

We examined 1 year (2013–2014) of medical and pharmacy claim, laboratory results, and enrollment data from one national health plan for 78,529 commercial health plan members with DM and 27,918 with CAD drawn from a population of 1,029,346 members across four metropolitan areas (Atlanta, Georgia; Houston, Texas; New York City/Northern New Jersey; and Southern California). The project was approved by the RAND institutional review board.

Measures

Age was measured in years. Race/ethnicity was categorized as Asian, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, non-Hispanic White, or other, which included those for whom race/ethnicity data were missing.

Quality of care measures assess whether the care provided adheres to evidence based standards of care. Specifically, we examined two screening measures (glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA1c] test in last 12 months, LDL cholesterol test within the last 12 months), two intermediate outcomes (most recent HbA1c control [HbA1c < 8%], LDL control (LDL < 100 mg/dL), and one combined outcome (LDL control < 100 mg/dL or statin use). The HbA1c measures were examined only for those with DM and the combined outcome was examined only for those with CAD. LDL screening and control measures were examined separately for both those with DM and those with CAD. We drew on NCQA HEDIS specifications to compute these measures.

We used Optum's EBM Symmetry Connect software (Optum Insight, 2012), a decision support and population health management software that scans medical and pharmacy claim, laboratory results, and enrollment data to identify members eligible for the selected EBM measures, and flags those who did and did not receive indicated care or meet indicated clinical threshold. We then calculated EBM scores or rates as the percentage of eligible members meeting (or not meeting) the standard for care for a specific measure.

Analyses

We used the χ2 and Fisher's exact tests to compare men's and women's unadjusted performance scores. For each of the seven quality measures, we built sequential logistic regression models. The first set of models tested for a gender gap in quality of care, adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, and income. In the second set of models, we assessed whether variables commonly tracked by population health management tools and teams explain gender differences in quality of care. Variables added in model 2 included a member risk score for having gaps in EBMs, the log of total medical cost for each member, a health management prioritization score, and use rates (e.g., number of office, emergency room, and inpatient visits, respectively; Optum Insight, 2012). Finally, in model 3 we added a set of variables the plan used to determine whether a member had been identified as eligible for one or more disease management or behavioral health programs. We present this sequence of results related to each EBM.

Results

Women were younger than men among members with DM and those with CAD (Table 1). Whereas men and women were almost equally represented among those with DM, among the members with CAD, men outnumbered women two to one. Among non-Hispanic Black (referred to hereafter as Black) members, women's representation was higher than men's for both conditions but only for CAD among Hispanic members. Men had higher representation in both disease groups among non-Hispanic White (referred to hereafter as White) members (analyses not shown). Race/ethnicity varied significantly by metropolitan area, with larger Hispanic populations in Houston and Southern California and larger Black populations in Atlanta and Houston (analyses not shown). Members with CAD were more concentrated in the New York City/Northern New Jersey area. However, within each disease group, men and women were distributed similarly geographically.

Table 1
Demographic Characteristics by Gender and Disease Category
Characteristic Diabetes Coronary Artery Disease
Women Men Women Men
Total sample size 38,525 40,004 9,604 18,314
Mean age (y) 49 53 55 56
Race/ethnicity
 Asian 7% 8% 5% 6%
 Non-Hispanic Black 10% 8% 9% 5%
 Hispanic 19% 19% 13% 10%
 Non-Hispanic White 38% 40% 48% 56%
 Other 25% 25% 25% 23%
Metropolitan area
 Atlanta 14% 13% 10% 12%
 Houston 31% 30% 27% 25%
 NYC/northern NJ 33% 35% 48% 47%
 Southern California 22% 22% 15% 16%

Gender differences varied considerably across quality measures (Figure 1). Among members with DM, gender differences were less than 2 percentage points for all but one of the four quality measures (LDL control). Performance rates were similar for men and women for HbA1c screening and for HbA1c control, women's performance rate exceeded men's by 1 percentage point. For LDL screening among members with diabetes, there was a small (<2 percentage point) but statistically significant difference favoring men. However, in the case of LDL control (LDL < 100 mg/dL) among members with diabetes, men's performance rate was 5 percentage points higher than women's.

Overall performance on quality measures for plan members by gender and health condition. HBA1c test and control indicate whether HBA1c level checked and HBA1c is less than 8%, respectively. LDL test and control indicate whether LDL cholesterol level checked and LDL of less than 100, respectively. LDL control or moderate statin indicates an LDL of less than 100 or patient on a moderate dose statin medication, which reduces LDL cholesterol. CAD, coronary artery disease; DM, diabetes mellitus; HbA1c, hemoglobin A1c or glycosylated hemoglobin; LDL, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

Unadjusted, gender gaps were larger among health plan members with CAD than those with DM (Figure 1), particularly for LDL control. The LDL screening rate for members with CAD was more than 2 percentage points higher for men. Although LDL control rates were much higher among members with CAD than DM, the overall gender gap was also larger (15 percentage points). Taking statin use into account reduced the gender gap. For the combined measure of LDL control or statin use, men's performance rates exceeded women's rates by 8 percentage points.

Unadjusted gender differences in performance rates also varied by metropolitan area, but the basic pattern of gender gaps in LDL control favoring men was similar to that for the overall plan population (analyses not shown). Herein we focus on measures for which the overall gender gap was more than 2 percentage points. Among members with CAD, men experienced LDL screening rates that ranged from 0.4 to 4.9 percentage points (p = .0016) higher across metropolitan areas. Among members with CAD, men's LDL control rates exceeded women's rates by 9.9 to 17.2 percentage points (p < .0001; Figure 2).

Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol control rates by region for plan members with diabetes.

The maps shown in Figures 3 and 4 track geographic variation in gender gaps in LDL screening and control among plan members with DM. In the case of LDL control (LD < 100 mg/dL) among members with DM, performance rates were 3.5% to 6.0% higher (p < .0001) for men in all four metropolitan areas (Figure 4). Sequential logistic regression models identified factors associated with not having received indicated care (hereafter referred to as a gap in indicated care) on each of the seven quality measures (Table 2).

Gender gaps in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol screening for plan members with diabetes by regional area. Subregional areas within each metropolitan area are based on three-digit zip codes. Areas where the average rate LDL testing or screening for women is higher than for men are shaded in blue with darker shades indicating larger gaps. Areas where the average rate for men is are higher than for women men are shaded in red blue with darker shades of red indicating larger gaps.

Gender gaps in Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol control by region and subregion (3-digit zip code) for plan members with diabetes. Subregional areas within each metropolitan area are based on 3-digit zip codes. Areas where the average rate LDL control (LDL < 100) for women is higher than for men are shaded in blue, with darker shades indicating larger gaps. Areas where the average rate for men is are higher than for women men are shaded in red blue with darker shades of red indicating larger gaps.

Likelihood of Women Not Receiving Indicated Care Compared with Men
Specific Measure Model 1∗ (95% CI) Model 2† (95% CI) Model 3‡ (95% CI)
Diabetes care
 HbA1c test 0.97 (0.93–1.02) 1.19 (1.12–1.27) 1.19 (1.12–1.27)
 HbA1c control 0.92 (0.89–0.95) 0.97 (0.94–1.02) 0.99 (0.95, 1.03)
 LDL test 1.08 (1.03–1.13) 1.30 (1.23–1.38) 1.31 (1.25–1.40)
 LDL control 1.24 (1.20–1.29) 1.31 (1.27–1.38) 1.34 (1.29–1.40)
Coronary artery disease care
 LDL test 1.16 (1.05–1.28) 1.16 (1.03–1.30) 1.17 (1.05–1.32)
 LDL control 1.85 (1.65–2.08) 1.88 (1.65–2.10) 1.87 (1.66–2.11)
 LDL control or moderate statin 2.18 (1.90–2.51) 2.18 (1.89–2.52) 2.17 (1.89–2.51)

Abbreviations: HbA1c, hemoglobin A1c or glycosylated hemoglobin; LDL, low-density lipoprotein.

The adjusted odds ratio of a woman not receiving the indicated care or desired outcome for each quality measure shown along with 95% CIs.

∗Model 1 adjusts for age, race/ethnicity, income, and metropolitan area.
†Model 2 adds a set of variables tracked by population health management software and teams including member risk score for having gaps in quality of care, log of total medical cost for each member, health management prioritization score, and use rates (e.g., number of office, emergency room, and inpatient visits, respectively).

‡Model 3 adds in a set of variables indicating whether a member was flagged as eligible for one or more plans programs to help members manage their chronic conditions.

Diabetes Management: Statistically Adjusted Results

Model 1 adjusted for demographic measures (age, race/ethnicity, and income) and metropolitan area (Table 2). Women and men with DM did not differ significantly in odds of having had an HbA1c screening in the last 12 months, either for the overall population or in any of the 4 metropolitan areas (analyses not shown). For HbA1c control, women were less likely than men to have a gap in indicated care (odds ratio [OR], 0.92, ranging from no significant gender difference in Houston to an OR of 0.85 in Southern California).

Women with DM faced greater odds than men of not having received an LDL test in the last 12 months (OR, 1.08). These results also vary by gender across the geographic areas. Atlanta had the greatest gender difference (OR, 1.13), with no significant difference observed in Houston or Southern California.

Women with diabetes were more likely than men to experience a gap in LDL control (OR, 1.24). Results varied by gender across the markets: Atlanta had the largest gender difference (OR, 1.31) and Southern California (OR, 1.12) the smallest.

Model 2 adjusted for additional case mix factors related to medical cost, risk, and use of services. After these adjustments, the gender difference in HbA1c testing becomes significant and favors men, the gender difference favoring women in HbA1c control becomes nonsignificant, and the differences favoring men for LDL testing and LDL control both increase.

In our final diabetes management model (model 3), we adjusted for having been identified as eligible for chronic disease management. There is no meaningful change in the results, which indicates that the algorithms identifying and programs offer to and received by some plan members for their diabetes management, do not compensate for the observed gender differences in care received.

CAD: Statistically Adjusted Results

In model 1 (with demographic adjustments), men with CAD were more likely than women to have had an LDL test in the last 12 months (OR, 1.16). These results also vary geographically. The odds of a gap in care were higher for women in Southern California (OR, 1.40) than New York City/New Jersey (OR, 1.24) and there was no significant gender difference in either Atlanta or Houston. Women were also more likely than men to experience a gap regarding LDL control (OR, 1.85). These results also varied geographically, with much higher odds in New York City/New Jersey (OR, 2.02) compared with a low in Houston (OR, 1.39). Women with CAD were also more likely to experience a gap in care, as demonstrated by not having achieved LDL control (LDL < 100) or taken a statin in the last 12 months (OR, 2.18). These results also varied geographically, with the greatest gender gap in New York City/Northern New Jersey (OR, 2.39) compared with Houston (OR, 1.59). Notably, across all of these models, the gender gaps were larger than gaps associated with being a racial/ethnic minority or those associated with lower income (analyses not shown).

After adjusting for medical cost, risk, and medical use case-mix variables in model 2 (Table 2), the gender differences for all three LDL measures continue to favor men and remain statistically significant. Finally, in model 3 we included population health management case-mix variables to adjust for having been identified as eligible for chronic disease management. As among individuals with CAD, there is no meaningful change in the results, which indicates that the algorithms that identify eligible members and programs that some plan members receive for their CAD do not compensate for the observed gender differences in care received.

Discussion

Despite considerable public and private efforts to improve quality of care for CAD and increase awareness of CAD in women, in this analysis of 78,532 health plan members with DM and 27,918 with CAD, we found significant gender differences in quality of preventive cardiovascular care, with some variation across four major metropolitan areas. Although there were only minor gender differences on screening measures, such as whether at-risk patients had an annual LDL cholesterol test, there were large gender gaps in whether LDL levels were controlled, a key outcome of care. The gender gap in LDL control was especially large for patients with documented CAD, averaging 15 percentage points higher for men than women. The gender gaps were not specific to one region and varied considerably between and within regions.

Gender gaps in LDL control among plan members with DM were smaller than for CAD, but the potential impact was still substantial. There are far more patients with DM than CAD. Of the 1 million adult health plan members considered for these analyses, there were nearly three times as many members with DM (78,529) as with CAD (27,918). If the women whose care we examined had experienced quality of care with respect to LDL control on par with the men, another 1,282 women with DM and 266 women with CAD would have had their LDL controlled. Although we have focused on the absolute percentage point differences, as is the norm, there is also value in considering the relative difference in rates when the overall rate is low, as is the case for LDL control among DM members (31.2% with LDL control). In terms of relative risk of having a gap in LDL cholesterol control, among members with DM, women were 21% more likely than men to have uncontrolled LDL cholesterol, and among members with CAD women were 25% more likely than men.

Our findings are consistent with previous studies showing gender gaps in preventive cardiovascular care. These studies include analyses of gender disparities in large samples of enrollees in commercial and Medicare plan ambulatory settings in 1999 (Bird et al., 2007) and more recently in 2005 (Chou and Brown et al., 2007, Chou and Wong et al., 2007). Although these studies examined data from different healthcare plans and periods of time and used somewhat different analytic models, results were consistent with prior studies (Corbelli et al., 2003, Correa-de-Araujo et al., 2006, Kim et al., 2006). Both studies found moderate gender gaps in screening and larger gaps in control. Similarly, a pilot study in California found gender gaps in LDL screening that varied geographically (Bird et al., 2014). Geographic variation in the gender gaps in care suggests that the problem is not immutable and can help to target high-risk areas and build consensus among providers of care (Wennberg, 1993) on such topics as CAD risk and need for therapy like statins. More recent analyses in Veterans Administration (VA) found gender gaps in control, which the VA has narrowed over time (Veterans Health Administration, 2012). Perhaps more notable than the gender gaps themselves is the lack of progress in narrowing the gap in LDL control, particularly outside the VA, in light of the much smaller gaps in screening.

Unfortunately, recent reports on statin use and cholesterol control are not available from many sources, including the recent CMS and RAND (2017) report on gender disparities in care among Medicare Advantage beneficiaries, because the NCQA retired the HEDIS cholesterol control measures. In 2013, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines released updated guidelines on cholesterol treatment (Stone et al., 2014). Citing a lack of evidence for the existing targets for cholesterol control, the new guidelines removed the targets and recommended high or moderate-intensity statin therapy based on patient risk factors. Of note, the measure was dropped because further decreases in LDL beyond the target (LDL < 100 mg/dL) were found to be beneficial, not because there is no value in attaining the former standard. As such, gaps in meeting the former standard still represent significant shortfalls in secondary prevention of CVD. Moreover, the American Heart Association (2014) responded by urging the NCQA to “create a replacement cholesterol measure as soon as possible that can be incorporated into future HEDIS measure sets.” In 2015, Medicare removed the previous LDL cholesterol goals from its quality measures as well (Bensimon & Hale, 2017).

The NCQA subsequently included new measures for patients with CVD and DM focused on statin therapy and adherence rather than LDL cholesterol levels (National Quality Measures Clearinghouse, 2015, National Quality Measures Clearinghouse, 2016). Similar statin therapy measures were soon added to other quality measure sets, such as the CMS's eCQM (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2018). Although these new statin therapy measures have merits, it remains unclear how they are affecting gender gaps in CVD care and outcomes, or whether the absence of an LDL control measure has made persistent gaps invisible. Of particular concern is the evidence that CVD deaths have increased since the LDL control measure was dropped. According to the National Forum for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, “In 2015, the death rate from heart disease in particular increased for the first time in 22 years and the rate of people dying from stroke rose for the second time in 2 years” (Sidney, 2017). Although the intention of the change in practice guidelines was to increase statin use, with no measure in place it is not possible to assess whether and to what extent women and/or men are benefitting from the change except by recreating the prior measure. A recent analysis of statin use by gender among Medicare beneficiaries with CVD and those with diabetes examined trends in statin use in 2010 through 2011 and 2012 through 2013, and found gender gaps of almost 15 percentage points favoring men among CVD patients and no difference among those with diabetes but not CVD (Salami et al., 2017). We know of no comparable work in the commercial population, and more work will be needed to assess the extent to which men and women are currently receiving guideline concordant care in the commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid populations.

However, earlier research by Mosca et al. (2005) found that women with intermediate cardiovascular risk as assessed by the Framingham Risk Score were significantly more likely to be assigned by providers to a lower risk category than were men with identical risk factors. Assigned risk level significantly predicted lifestyle recommendations and preventive pharmacotherapy. The pattern of underestimating women's risk was similar for primary care physicians, obstetrician/gynecologists, and cardiologists. Providers were also less likely to prescribe statins to women and to increase the dose to achieve adequate LDL control, although this only partly explained the observed gender gaps in care.

To assess whether the difference in care is attributable to gender differences in the possibility of achieving control over high LDL cholesterol, the VA added a new measure of control or statin use, which we also examined here (Downs and O’Malley, 2015, Veterans Health Administration, 2012). Taking treatment as well as control into account narrowed the gender gap, but a 7% gap remained. Similarly, we found that a combined measure reflected reduced gender gaps, but differences remained.

This finding raises the question of whether women's lower levels of statin use and of achieving control are a function of patient preferences and behavior or of biological differences in women's response to statins. There is some evidence that women, especially younger women, underestimate their cardiovascular risk (Biswas et al., 2002, Leifheit-Limson et al., 2015); also, women may experience more side effects and musculoskeletal pain, or more attempts at finding a tolerable statin (Karalis et al., 2016). These factors may contribute directly to women's perceptions of statins based on reports of other patients and to their experience with taking statins themselves. However, adherence to statins among women in the VA is only slightly lower than among men (Vimalananda et al., 2013), and our findings demonstrate smaller gaps among those with diabetes than those with CAD. Moreover, it is unlikely that women's lower rates of treatment and control are due to less care seeking, because we found no gaps or gaps favoring women in screening and other measures such as HbA1c.

Gender biases found in provider studies may to some extent have been built into some of the industry standard care management and population health management software programs that are increasingly used by large provider groups and accountable care organizations. Our finding that gaps persisted after accounting for eligibility for care management programs based on one such software system suggests that the algorithm itself may need to be adjusted to better recognize risk among women, especially younger women. Algorithms may have been developed to assist with care use and costs in the short run rather than in the long run, when younger women with higher CAD risk begin to experience worse disease trajectories. Notably, gender gaps in care were on average larger than racial/ethnic or socioeconomic gaps, which, when observed, were largely accounted for by care management case mix variables. This suggests that within this health plan at least, decision algorithms were well-calibrated to detect minority or low socioeconomic status members at risk. Further work is needed to recalibrate these population health management algorithms and to further assess the possibility that assigning more women with CAD risk to health improvement programs could improve outcomes and lower costs in women, especially younger women.

Limitations and Strengths

Our analysis is based primarily on administrative claims rather than electronic health record data, and no chart review was done. Performance rates on quality measures based on administrative claims may differ from those based on electronic health record data or chart review (the gold standard; Tang, Ralston, Arrigotti, Qureshi, & Graham, 2007). However, the gender gaps tend to be similar, regardless of whether claims or electronic health record data are used (Cho, Hoogwerf, Huang, Brennan, & Hazen, 2008). Because geographic mapping of gender differences in care is novel and not based on a representative national sample, we are limited in understanding whether the areas we identified represent unusually high or low levels of variation in men's and women's care. Additional work is needed to assess whether and to what extent observed gaps have varied, improved, or worsened over time. By examining care in four major metropolitan areas, representing different regions, we were able to include use patterns, health risks, and eligibility for existing programs aimed at improving patient outcomes as possible explanatory factors. Another strength was that we included information on eligibility for and engagement with behavioral and disease management programs. Taken together, these rich data provided an opportunity for a more extensive picture of gender gaps in care and of opportunities for algorithm improvement and then intervention.

Conclusions

Gender gaps observed in prior studies persist. Our analyses also showed that, although the levels and gaps in quality varied somewhat across the four regions, the models did not. Interestingly, patterns of use and risk among members with CAD or DM explained little to none of the gender gaps in care. Moreover, existing behavioral and disease management algorithms seem to underrepresent women, and particularly younger women, despite their established CAD or DM. This finding suggests that gender biases that may at times favor men's care over women's may be reflected in the off-the-shelf algorithms designed to identify patients for disease management used by many health plans nationally and within specific regions or states. These algorithms can be cloned, changed, and tested to address gender disparities in care.

Our findings can help health insurers to assess opportunities to improve algorithms to better identify eligible members for programs and increase engagement among women in those programs. In future work, it will be possible to assess the extent to which changing the algorithms and flagging more younger women for new and existing disease management programs closes the gaps and whether additional intervention efforts improve women's care. Moreover, this lays the foundation for assessing algorithms used to measure gaps in care and whether programs and interventions differentially impact men's and women's care.

Implications for Policy and/or Practice

Awareness of and action to address gaps in the quality of women's CAD and DM care are limited, in part, because quality of care is not routinely measured and reported by gender. Conventional methods of measuring and reporting quality of care focus on average quality performance scores across the overall population that a plan serves in different markets or regions; separate assessments and reporting by gender or local area are rare. Without routine tracking and reporting of quality of care by gender, the care received by women is generally assumed to be equal to that received by men, if not better for women owing to their greater health care use. As a result of this assumption, the quality gap in CVD and diabetes care remains largely invisible to individual women, providers, payers, and policymakers, even among those seeking to improve women's health and health care. In cases where gender gaps in care have been monitored and targeted, such as in recent initiatives by the Veterans Health Administration, marked reductions in gender disparities in CVD and other types of care have been achieved, although some gaps persist (Veterans Health Administration, 2012). Routine analysis and reporting of these measures by gender would bring attention to the problems.

Mapping quality of care by gender may be particularly helpful in identifying the scope of the problem and helping to engage relevant decision makers in local metropolitan areas in discussions and explorations of ways to improve routine aspects of women's care. Moreover, these findings can be used to help women understand the extent to which they may be at risk of experiencing gaps in care. When gaps in care are invisible, they are intractable. Visual displays such as maps make information accessible and relatively easy to interpret while improving identification of geographic regions for targeted improvement. Using geospatial technology to generate maps for quality of care metrics and making the information accessible to key stakeholders provides the opportunity to better address disparities in CVD management for women.

Closing the gender gaps in CAD and DM care could improve women's quality of life and longevity. Increased attention to CAD and improving CAD-related care for women is warranted. Unmet need for CAD and DM screening and treatment contributes to avoidable morbidity, mortality, and costs. Moreover, the extent and variation in gender gaps in care suggest that gender-stratified reporting could shed light on differences in quality of care and facilitate quality improvement (Bird, Fremont, Wickstrom, Bierman, & McGlynn, 2003). Both health insurers and provider groups need to examine whether algorithms and programs intended to close gaps in care are effectively overcoming gender gaps in care or outcomes.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  3  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2018 04:21 pm
@Sturgis,
Did you see his glitterbag reply? How is that respectful?
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2018 04:47 pm
@RABEL222,
I am curious about where you think I was disrespectful to Glitterbag. Glitterbag has been quite nasty, including attacking my daughter. I feel like I have been quite restrained and patient with her.

I disagree with Glitterbag, but that isn't a sin. And I don't approve of the nastiness of some of her posts... but I don't believe I have ever attacked her personally.

neptuneblue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2018 07:22 pm
It’s Not Just Hobby Lobby: These 71 Companies Don’t Want to Cover Your Birth Control Either
Meet the companies battling Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate.
JAEAH LEEAPR. 2, 2014 10:00 AM


Margot Riphagen of New Orleans wears a birth control pills costume as she protests in front of the US Supreme Court.Charles Dharapak/AP Photo

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Inc., the closely watched case in which the Oklahoma-based craft store chain has challenged the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, requiring insurance policies to cover birth control without a copay. Hobby Lobby’s high-profile case may have nabbed most of the headlines so far, but it’s far from the only company that’s taking on the Obama administration over the mandate.

Since February 2012, 71 other for-profit companies have challenged the ACA’s contraceptive mandate in court, according to the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC). The majority of these for-profit cases (46 in addition to Hobby Lobby’s) are still pending. Jump to the full list of cases by clicking here.

The plaintiffs maintain that the federal government, by requiring contraceptive coverage under the ACA, is infringing on their religious views. Like Hobby Lobby, many of these companies had already covered birth control under their insurance plans, but they oppose the ACA’s rules requiring health plans to cover contraceptives including the drug Plan B, which they argue causes abortions. The Thomas More Law Center, a law firm “dedicated to the defense and promotion of the religious freedom of Christians,” has filed 11 cases on behalf of 33 plaintiffs against the ACA contraceptive mandate. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the center asserts in an amicus brief supporting Hobby Lobby, protects employers fighting the mandate “from being forced, under threat of ruinous government fines, to fund products and services that violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

“Forced” is not quite accurate, though, as my colleague Stephanie Mencimer reported last week. An employer doesn’t have to provide health insurance to its employees at all; in fact, it’s probably cheaper for a company to instead pay the tax that would help subsidize its employees’ coverage obtained through the exchanges or Medicaid.

A pro-Hobby Lobby verdict would most immediately affect the at least 22,000 people employed by the companies who brought these lawsuits.
A Supreme Court ruling in Hobby Lobby’s favor could have a far-reaching impact, potentially dismantling corporate laws that have long shielded CEOs and board members from lawsuits or paving the way for companies to claim religious exemptions from other federal regulations, as we reported last week. But a pro-Hobby Lobby verdict would most immediately affect the more than 22,000 people employed by the companies who brought these lawsuits, says Gretchen Borchelt, senior counsel and director of state reproductive health policy at the NWLC, which has been tracking the cases. The outcome of many of these cases, she says, may hinge on the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling.

So who are some of these other companies fighting the Obama administration over the ACA contraceptive mandate?

In Michigan, there’s Trijicon, a military contractor specializing in optics equipment for weapons. The company last made headlines in 2010, when it came under fire for stamping references to Bible verses on its combat rifle sights. According to data provided to Mother Jones by the Department of Defense, Trijicon currently holds at least $8.9 million in active contracts with the US military.

In its August 2013 lawsuit, Trijicon claims that the company “and its shareholders have a deeply held religious belief that life begins at conception/fertilization.” The company’s website states: “We believe that America is great when its people are good. This goodness has been based on biblical standards throughout our history and we will strive to follow those morals.” Depending on where the Supreme Court lands on Hobby Lobby, that belief could mean no more birth control coverage for the company’s 257 employees, 212 of whom are currently enrolled in the company’s insurance plan. Trijicon did not respond to interview requests or emailed questions.

In West Virginia, Joe Holland, a born-again Christian who owns a local car dealership, is taking on the contraceptive mandate in court even while publicly touting his company’s support for women. Joe Holland Chevrolet, which filed suit against the Obama administration in June 2013, is closed on Sundays; on Monday mornings, Holland conducts an informal prayer session that’s open to his 150 employees. Holland is proud to have women filling positions throughout his dealership, all the way up to the management level. “When we think of women in the automotive industry, most of us see a receptionist or someone behind the desk doing paper work and other behind the scene tasks,” says a company webpage created in 2011. “Not at Joe Holland Chevrolet & Imports of South Charleston, WV…At Joe Holland we understand the need for women to feel they are receiving trustworthy information and advice when it comes to service on their vehicle or the purchase of a vehicle.”

Ohio-based companies Freshway Foods and Freshway Logistics, a produce processor and distributor run by brothers Philip and Frank Gilardi Jr., are also taking on Obamacare over the contraception mandate. “[A]s the two owners with controlling interests in the two corporations,” the Gilardis, who are Catholic, argue in their legal complaint, “they conduct their businesses in a manner that does not violate their sincerely-held religious beliefs or moral values, and they wish to continue to do so.”

Some Freshway workers might beg to differ. In 2011, former Freshway employee Lilia Trujillo-Salas sued the company for sexual harassment, after allegedly enduring multiple incidents of “unwelcome sexual comments, sexual innuendo, and physical contact,” according to court documents. Trujillo-Salas complained to her supervisors and asked to transfer jobs after a male coworker allegedly held her in a storage room and told her she wouldn’t be released until she kissed him. Another time, a coworker allegedly propositioned her for sex. Eventually, Trujillo-Salas was suspended then fired after injuring herself at work. Freshway denied the sexual-assault allegations but settled the case with an undisclosed payout.

“I don’t care if the federal government is telling me to buy my employees Jack Daniel’s or birth control.”
One company NWLC’s Borchelt was particularly surprised to see on the list is Eden Foods, the Michigan-based organic food company, which she says has an “outstanding record of social and environmental responsibility.”

The company filed suit against the Obama administration in early 2013, eventually losing its case at the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. Eden Foods did not respond to interview requests, but when Salon reporter Irin Carmon interviewed the company’s CEO, Michael Potter, about the case last April, he argued:

“I don’t care if the federal government is telling me to buy my employees Jack Daniel’s or birth control. What gives them the right to tell me that I have to do that?…I’m not trying to get birth control out of Rite Aid or Wal-Mart, but don’t tell me I gotta pay for it.”

This interview, the 6th Circuit’s Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey later wrote in her opinion on the case, showed that Potter’s “deeply held religious beliefs more resembled a laissez-faire, anti-government screed.”

Even after a string of bad press and considerable customer backlash, Potter defended the lawsuit: “We believe in a woman’s right to decide, and have access to, all aspects of their health care and reproductive management. This lawsuit does not block, or intend to block, anyone’s access to health care or reproductive management. This lawsuit is about protecting religious freedom and stopping the government from forcing citizens to violate their conscience. We object to the HHS mandate and its government overreach.”

Borchelt doesn’t see it that way. “These companies are not hiring based on the religious beliefs of the workers. Imagine being someone applying for a warehouse position at an organic food company. Why would you ever think, ‘Oh, I need to research this owner’s religious beliefs to know whether or not I’m going to get access to birth control insurance’?”

Below is a full list of the pending cases, as tracked by the NWLC. Watch this space for periodic updates. Look up individual court documents at the American Civil Liberties Union’s website.

Tyndale House
Freshway Foods
Johnson Welded Products
Willis & Willis PC
Trijicon, Inc.
Barron Industries
Midwest Fastener Corp.
Electrolock Inc.
Zumbiel Packaging
Encompass Develop, Design & Construct, LLC.
Holland Chevrolet
Autocam Corporation
Domino’s Farms
Mersino Management
Eden Foods Incorporated
MK Chambers Company
M&N Plastics
Mersino Dewatering, Inc.
Korte & Luitjohan Contractors, Inc.
Triune Health Group
Grote Industries
Tonn and Blank Construction
Lindsay, Rappaport and Postel, LLC
Hart Electric, LLC
Ozinga Brothers
O’Brien Industrial Holdings
American Pulverizer Company
Annex Medical Inc.
Sioux Chief Mfg. Co., Inc.
American Mfg. Company
Bick Holdings, Inc.
SMA, LLC
QC Group
Feltl and Co.
Randy Reed Automotive
Doboszenski & Sons, Inc.
Hastings Automotive
Stinson Electric
Hercules Industries, Inc.
Continuum Health Partnerships & Connessione
Cherry Creek Mortgage Co.
Beckwith Electric Co.
Geneva College*
Weingartz Supply Company*
Sharpe Holdings, Inc.*
Catholic Benefits Association*
[NONPROFITS]

Belmont Abbey College
Wheaton College
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington
Priests for Life
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York
Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, et al.
Louisiana College
Roman Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth
Roman Catholic Diocese of Biloxi
East Texas Baptist University
Catholic Diocese of Beaumont
Michigan Catholic Conference
Right to Life of Michigan
Catholic Diocese of Nashville
Ave Maria Foundation
Union University
University of Notre Dame
Catholic Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend
Grace Schools
Archdiocese of St. Louis
School of the Ozarks
Dordt College
Colorado Christian University
Southern Nazarene University
Little Sisters of the Poor
Reaching Souls International
Fellowship of Catholic University Students
Diocese of Cheyenne
Eternal World Television Network
Ave Maria University
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta
Persico (Roman Catholic Diocese of Erie, Pennsylvania)
Zubik (Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)
Brandt (Roman Catholic Diocese of Greensburg, Pennsylvania)
James Dobson (Family Talk radio show and ministry)
Ave Maria School of Law

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 05:56:19