Implementation of state health insurance benefit mandates for cancer-related fertility preservation: following policy through a complex system.


Journal

Implementation science : IS
ISSN: 1748-5908
Titre abrégé: Implement Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101258411

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
16 Feb 2024
Historique:
received: 12 09 2023
accepted: 20 01 2024
medline: 17 2 2024
pubmed: 17 2 2024
entrez: 16 2 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

A myriad of federal, state, and organizational policies are designed to improve access to evidence-based healthcare, but the impact of these policies likely varies due to contextual determinants of, reinterpretations of, and poor compliance with policy requirements throughout implementation. Strategies enhancing implementation and compliance with policy intent can improve population health. Critically assessing the multi-level environments where health policies and their related health services are implemented is essential to designing effective policy-level implementation strategies. California passed a 2019 health insurance benefit mandate requiring coverage of fertility preservation services for individuals at risk of infertility due to medical treatments, in order to improve access to services that are otherwise cost prohibitive. Our objective was to document and understand the multi-level environment, relationships, and activities involved in using state benefit mandates to facilitate patient access to fertility preservation services. We conducted a mixed-methods study and used the policy-optimized exploration, preparation, implementation, and sustainment (EPIS) framework to analyze the implementation of California's fertility preservation benefit mandate (SB 600) at and between the state insurance regulator, insurer, and clinic levels. Seventeen publicly available fertility preservation benefit mandate-relevant documents were reviewed. Interviews were conducted with four insurers; 25 financial, administrative, and provider participants from 16 oncology and fertility clinics; three fertility pharmaceutical representatives; and two patient advocates. The mandate and insurance regulator guidance represented two "Big P" (system level) policies that gave rise to a host of "little p" (organizational) policies by and between the regulator, insurers, clinics, and patients. Many little p policies were bridging factors to support implementation across levels and fertility preservation service access. Characterizing the mandate's functions (i.e., policy goals) and forms (i.e., ways that policies were enacted) led to identification of (1) intended and unintended implementation, service, and patient outcomes, (2) implementation processes by level and EPIS phase, (3) actor-delineated key processes and heterogeneity among them, and (4) inner and outer context determinants that drove adaptations. Following the midstream and downstream implementation of a state health insurance benefit mandate, data generated will enable development of policy-level implementation strategies, evaluation of determinants and important outcomes of effective implementation, and design of future mandates to improve fit and fidelity.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
A myriad of federal, state, and organizational policies are designed to improve access to evidence-based healthcare, but the impact of these policies likely varies due to contextual determinants of, reinterpretations of, and poor compliance with policy requirements throughout implementation. Strategies enhancing implementation and compliance with policy intent can improve population health. Critically assessing the multi-level environments where health policies and their related health services are implemented is essential to designing effective policy-level implementation strategies. California passed a 2019 health insurance benefit mandate requiring coverage of fertility preservation services for individuals at risk of infertility due to medical treatments, in order to improve access to services that are otherwise cost prohibitive. Our objective was to document and understand the multi-level environment, relationships, and activities involved in using state benefit mandates to facilitate patient access to fertility preservation services.
METHODS METHODS
We conducted a mixed-methods study and used the policy-optimized exploration, preparation, implementation, and sustainment (EPIS) framework to analyze the implementation of California's fertility preservation benefit mandate (SB 600) at and between the state insurance regulator, insurer, and clinic levels.
RESULTS RESULTS
Seventeen publicly available fertility preservation benefit mandate-relevant documents were reviewed. Interviews were conducted with four insurers; 25 financial, administrative, and provider participants from 16 oncology and fertility clinics; three fertility pharmaceutical representatives; and two patient advocates. The mandate and insurance regulator guidance represented two "Big P" (system level) policies that gave rise to a host of "little p" (organizational) policies by and between the regulator, insurers, clinics, and patients. Many little p policies were bridging factors to support implementation across levels and fertility preservation service access. Characterizing the mandate's functions (i.e., policy goals) and forms (i.e., ways that policies were enacted) led to identification of (1) intended and unintended implementation, service, and patient outcomes, (2) implementation processes by level and EPIS phase, (3) actor-delineated key processes and heterogeneity among them, and (4) inner and outer context determinants that drove adaptations.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Following the midstream and downstream implementation of a state health insurance benefit mandate, data generated will enable development of policy-level implementation strategies, evaluation of determinants and important outcomes of effective implementation, and design of future mandates to improve fit and fidelity.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38365808
doi: 10.1186/s13012-024-01343-1
pii: 10.1186/s13012-024-01343-1
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

14

Subventions

Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R21CA2711847
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U01CA275118
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDA NIH HHS
ID : K01DA056838
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDA NIH HHS
ID : R01DA049891
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : P50MH126231
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : R25 MH080916
Pays : United States

Informations de copyright

© 2024. The Author(s).

Références

Crable EL, Lengnick-Hall R, Stadnick NA, et al. Where is “policy” in dissemination and implementation science? Recommendations to advance theories, models, and frameworks: EPIS as a case example. Implement Sci. 2022;17:80.
doi: 10.1186/s13012-022-01256-x pubmed: 36503520 pmcid: 9742035
Grace AM, Noonan KG, Cheng TL, et al. The ACA’s pediatric essential health benefit has resulted in a state-by-state patchwork of coverage with exclusions. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33:2136–43.
doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0743 pubmed: 25489031
DeMaria E, English W, Mattar S, et al. State variation in obesity, bariatric surgery, and economic ranks: a tale of two Americas. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2018;14:S71.
doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2018.09.115
Willison CE, Singer PM, Grazier KL. Double-edged sword of federalism: variation in essential health benefits for mental health and substance use disorder coverage in states. Health Econ Policy Law. 2021;16:170–82.
doi: 10.1017/S1744133119000306 pubmed: 31902388
Cubanski J, Scahuffler HH: Mandated health insurance benefits: tradeoffs among benefits, coverage and costs?, California Health Policy Issue Brief, 2002.
Peipert BJ, Montoya MN, Bedrick BS, et al. Impact of in vitro fertilization state mandates for third party insurance coverage in the United States: a review and critical assessment. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2022;20:111.
doi: 10.1186/s12958-022-00984-5 pubmed: 35927756 pmcid: 9351254
Liverani M, Hawkins B, Parkhurst JO. Political and institutional influences on the use of evidence in public health policy. A systematic review. PLoS One. 2013;8:e77404.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077404 pubmed: 24204823 pmcid: 3813708
Alliance for Fertility Preservation: State Laws and Legislation. 2023.   https://www.allianceforfertilitypreservation.org/advocacy/state-legislation . Accessed 10 Dec 2023.
California Health Benefits Review Program: Analysis of Assembly Bill 428: Fertility Preservation. A report to the 2011-2012 California Legistlature, 2011.   https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335000271_California_Health_Benefits_Review_Program_Analysis_of_Assembly_Bill_428_Fertility_Preservation . Accessed 10 May 2023.
California Health Benefits Review Program: Analysis of Assembly Bill 912: Fertility Preservation. A report to the 2012-2013 California Legislature, 2013.   http://analyses.chbrp.com/document/view.php?id=833 . Accessed 10 May 2023.
California Health Benefits Review Program: Analysis of Senate Bill (SB) 172: Fertility Preservation. A report to the 2017-2018 California State Legislature, 2017.  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334812267_California_Health_Benefits_Review_Program_Analysis_of_California_Senate_Bill_172_Fertility_Preservation . Accessed 10 May 2023.
California Health Benefits Review Program: Analysis of Senate Bill (SB) 600: Fertility Preservation. A report to the 2019-2020 California State Legislature, 2019, pp http://analyses.chbrp.com/document/view.php?id=1407 . Accessed 10 May 2023.
Flores Ortega RE, Yoeun SW, Mesina O, et al. Assessment of health insurance benefit mandates for fertility preservation among 11 US states. JAMA Health Forum. 2021;2:e214309.
doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2021.4309 pubmed: 36218913
Kawwass JF, Penzias AS, Adashi EY. Fertility-a human right worthy of mandated insurance coverage: the evolution, limitations, and future of access to care. Fertil Steril. 2021;115:29–42.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.09.155 pubmed: 33342534
Portantino: Senate Bill No. 600: an act to add Section 1374.551 to the Health and Safety Code, relating to health care coverage., in California So (ed), 2019.
California Health and Safety Code Section 1374.551.,
Moullin JC, Dickson KS, Stadnick NA, et al. Systematic review of the exploration, preparation, implementation, sustainment (EPIS) framework. Implement Sci. 2019;14:1.
doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0842-6 pubmed: 30611302 pmcid: 6321673
California Department of Managed Health Care: financial summary data, 2021. https://www.dmhc.ca.gov/DataResearch/FinancialSummaryData.aspx , Accessed 5 Jan 2020.
Bullock HL, Lavis JN, Wilson MG, et al. Understanding the implementation of evidence-informed policies and practices from a policy perspective: a critical interpretive synthesis. Implement Sci. 2021;16:18.
doi: 10.1186/s13012-021-01082-7 pubmed: 33588878 pmcid: 7885555
Hennink M, Kaiser BN. Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: a systematic review of empirical tests. Soc Sci Med. 2022;292:114523.
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523 pubmed: 34785096
California Senate Committee on Health: Bill Analysis for SB 600, 2019. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB600 . Accessed 10 May 2023.
California Department of Managed Health Care: APL-20-001 newly enacted statutes impacting health plans, 2020. https://www.dmhc.ca.gov/Portals/0/Docs/OPL/APL%2020-001%20(OPL)%20%20Newly%20Enacted%20Statutes%20Impacting%20Health%20Plans%20.pdf?ver=2021-05-07-101417-977 . Accessed 10 May 2023.
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119, 2010.
Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act, in California Health & Safety Code section 1340 et seq (ed), 1975.
California Assembly Committee on Health: Bill Analysis for AB 428, 2011. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120AB428 . Accessed 10 May 2023.
Crable EL, Benintendi A, Jones DK, et al. Translating Medicaid policy into practice: policy implementation strategies from three US states’ experiences enhancing substance use disorder treatment. Implement Sci. 2022;17:3.
doi: 10.1186/s13012-021-01182-4 pubmed: 34991638 pmcid: 8734202
Presskreischer R, Barry CL, Lawrence AK, et al. Factors affecting state-level enforcement of the Federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act: a cross-case analysis of four states. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2023;48:1–34.
doi: 10.1215/03616878-10171062 pubmed: 36112956 pmcid: 9938503
Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission: implementation of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act in Medicaid and CHIP, MACPAC Issue Brief, 2021.
Hudson B, Hunter D, Peckham S. Policy failure and the policy-implementation gap: can policy support programs help? Policy Design and Practice. 2019;2:1–14.
doi: 10.1080/25741292.2018.1540378

Auteurs

H Irene Su (HI)

Moores Cancer Center and Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, 92093, USA. hisu@health.ucsd.edu.

Bonnie N Kaiser (BN)

Department of Anthropology and Global Health Program, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, 92093, USA.

Erika L Crable (EL)

Department of Psychiatry, Altman Clinical and Translational Research Institute Dissemination and Implementation Science Center, Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California, La Jolla, Los Angeles, CA, 92093, USA.
Child and Adolescent Services Research Center, San Diego, CA, USA.

Ricardo Flores Ortega (RF)

Moores Cancer Center and Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, 92093, USA.

Sara W Yoeun (SW)

Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California, La Jolla, Loss Angeles, CA, 92093, USA.

Melina A Economou (MA)

Department of Anthropology and Global Health Program, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, 92093, USA.

Estefania Fernandez (E)

Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, 92093, USA.

Sally A D Romero (SAD)

Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences and Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, 92093, USA.

Gregory A Aarons (GA)

Child and Adolescent Services Research Center, San Diego, CA, USA.
Department of Psychiatry and Altman Clinical and Translational Research Institute Dissemination and Implementation Science Center, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, 92093, USA.

Sara B McMenamin (SB)

Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California, La Jolla, Loss Angeles, CA, 92093, USA. smcmenamin@health.ucsd.edu.

Classifications MeSH