The Milbank quarterly
-
The Milbank quarterly · Sep 2015
Legal Protections in Public Accommodations Settings: A Critical Public Health Issue for Transgender and Gender-Nonconforming People.
Since 2012, Massachusetts law has provided legal protections against discrimination on the basis of gender identity in employment, housing, credit, public education, and hate crimes. The law does not protect against discrimination based on gender identity in public accommodations settings such as transportation, retail stores, restaurants, health care facilities, and bathrooms. A 2013 survey of Massachusetts transgender and other gender minority adults found that in the past 12 months, 65% had experienced public accommodations discrimination since the law was passed. This discrimination was associated with a greater risk of adverse emotional and physical symptoms in the past 30 days. Nondiscrimination laws inclusive of gender identity should protect against discrimination in public accommodations settings to support transgender people's health and their ability to access health care. ⋯ Discrimination in public accommodations is common and is associated with adverse health outcomes among transgender and gender-nonconforming adults in Massachusetts. Discrimination in health care settings creates a unique health risk for gender minority people. The passage and enforcement of transgender rights laws that include protections against discrimination in public accommodations-inclusive of health care-are a public health policy approach critically needed to address transgender health inequities.
-
POLICY POINTS: In 2008, researchers at the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) proposed the Triple Aim, strategic organizing principles for health care organizations and geographic communities that seek, simultaneously, to improve the individual experience of care and the health of populations and to reduce the per capita costs of care for populations. In 2010, the Triple Aim became part of the US national strategy for tackling health care issues, especially in the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010. Since that time, IHI and others have worked together to determine how the implementation of the Triple Aim has progressed. Drawing on our 7 years of experience, we describe 3 major principles that guided the organizations and communities working on this endeavor: creating the right foundation for population management, managing services at scale for the population, and establishing a learning system to drive and sustain the work over time. ⋯ The concept of the Triple Aim is now widely used, because of IHI's work with many organizations and also because of the adoption of the Triple Aim as part of the national strategy for US health care, developed during the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. Even those organizations working on the Triple Aim before IHI coined the term found our concept to be useful because it helped them think about all 3 dimensions at once and organize their work around them.
-
POLICY POINTS: France's model of third-party coverage for long-term services and supports (LTSS) combines a steeply income-adjusted universal public program for people 60 or older with voluntary supplemental private insurance. French and US policies differ: the former pay cash; premiums are lower; and take-up rates are higher, in part because employer sponsorship, with and without subsidization, is more common-but also because coverage targets higher levels of need and pays a smaller proportion of costs. Such inexpensive, bare-bones private coverage, especially if marketed as a supplement to a limited public benefit, would be more affordable to those Americans currently most at risk of "spending down" to Medicaid. ⋯ American private insurers are showing increasing interest in long-term care financing approaches that combine public and private elements. The French example shows how a simple, cheap, cash-based product can gain traction among middle-income individuals when offered by employers and combined with a steeply income-adjusted universal public program. The adequacy of such coverage, however, is a concern.