A hotly debated issue in Congress has been the issue of when health maintenance organizations, health insurers, and those who administer health benefit plans should be financially liable to their plan participants for a denial of a claim or for damages for any injuries that result from such denials (known as health plan liability ). This new report by Gary Claxton of the Georgetown Institute for Health Care Research and Policy describes the health plan liability issue, compares the different health plan liability provisions passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives, and provides two scenarios that illustrate the differences between the Senate and House liability provisions.

• Report

Full Report: Spending on the HIV/AIDS Epidemic: A Three Part Series

This compliation policy brief provides analysis of spending on the HIV/AIDS epidemic both by the United States government and globally. Included is an analysis of U.S. federal spending on the HIV/AIDS epidemic since FY 1981; spending by the U.S. on global HIV/AIDS activities and programs; and global spending on HIV/AIDS in resource-poor settings, including bilateral, multilateral, and private sector support.This policy brief was prepared as part of AIDS at 20: A National HIV/AIDS Policy Initiative, a joint initiative of the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Ford Foundation. You may download the full report or each policy brief separately.

• Report: Full Report: Spending on the HIV/AIDS Epidemic: A Three-Part Series

This issue update reviews abortion since the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade legalized it in 1973. Every state has laws regulating some aspect of the provision of abortion, and many have passed restrictions that are now in effect, such as parental consent or notification requirements; mandated counseling and waiting periods; and limits on funding for abortion.

Issue Brief (.pdf)

How Have Abortion Practice, Policy, Politics, and Public Opinion Changed?

We are fast approaching the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the United States. In January 2003, a generation will have grown up knowing abortion as a legal right for American women. Yet, abortion remains a hotly debated issue in this country.

So, 30 years later, where are we?

On October 8, at the most recent Emerging Issues in Reproductive Health Briefing a panel of researchers, public policy experts, and abortion providers discussed the current state of abortion politics and policies, the rates of abortion in recent years, who is having abortions today teens, low-income women, married women – how and why have these profiles changed, and what the future of the Supreme Court holds for abortion. The panel discussion featured leading experts, Rachel K. Jones, PhD, Senior Research Associate, Alan Guttmacher Institute; Kathryn Kolbert, JD, legal and public policy expert on abortion and reproductive rights at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center; Sarah Brown, MSPH, Director, The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy; and William F. Harrison, MD, a Fayetteville, Arkansas, ob/gyn for more than 30 years.

• Agenda
• Resource List
• Biographies of Participants
• Fact Sheet: Abortion in the U.S.
• Issue Update: Abortion Policy and Politics
• Survey Snapshot: Views and Practices of Women’s Health Care Providers on Medical Abortion: An Update on Mifepristone
• Webcast of this event
• Past Emerging Issues Briefings

Summary Report

Numerous studies over the past two decades have documented racial and ethnic differences in care for heart conditions. To assess the quality of the evidence and to summarize the information for a physician audience, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation collaborated with the American College of Cardiology Foundation to review the body of research on racial/ethnic differences in cardiac care.

There is credible evidence that minority patients are less likely than white patients to receive invasive cardiac procedures such as catheterization, angioplasty, bypass surgery and thrombolytic therapy even when patient characteristics are similar. These disparities remain even after adjusting for such factors as age, sex, insurance status and heart disease severity. Of the 81 studies investigating racial/ethnic differences in care over the past two decades, 68 found disparities in care for at least one of the racial/ethnic minority groups under study.

This summary report is one component of an initiative to raise physician awareness about disparities in medical care.

• Summary of Findings

is an ongoing media briefing series for journalists organized by the Kaiser Family Foundation. This quarterly series provides in-depth, balanced, cutting-edge information on controversial and underreported issues in reproductive and sexual health.

Briefings have covered topics such as: One Year Later: Medical Abortion after FDA Approval; Condom Ads on TV; Unwrapping the Controversy; and Microbicides…So, What are They? And Why Should You Care?

By providing accurate, in-depth information for journalists, the briefing series aims to enhance reproductive health information available to the public and encourage discussion of vital reproductive health topics. At each briefing, the foundation releases a new study or new information on a timely issue, and conducts a roundtable discussion among nationally-recognized experts representing different perspectives.

Roe v. Wade 30 Years Later: How Have Abortion Practice, Policy, Politics, and Public Opinion Changed?(October 8, 2002)

What You Need to Know on “The Pill”(June 18. 2002)

It Takes Two: What Sexual Health Means for Men…And What That Means For Women (March 12, 2002)

Generation Rx.com: How Young People Use the Internet for Health Information (December 11, 2001)

One Year Later: Medical Abortion After FDA Approval(September 24, 2001)

Condom Ads on TV: Unwrapping the Controversy(June 19, 2001)

Microbicides, So What Are They, And Why Should You Care?(May 4, 2001)

Emergency Contraception on the Drug Store Shelves…Will It Happen? And What Will It Mean For “The Pill”?(November 16, 2000)

If the FDA Approves Mifepristone…What Happens Next? Will Doctors Provide It? Will Women Want It? And, What Effect Will It Have On Abortion Politics?(June 13, 2000)

The Gender Politics: How (And How Much) Will Women Influence Election 2000?(April 18, 2000)

The HPV Test: Coming Soon TO A Doctor’s Office Near You? Is It Better Than The Pap Smear For Detecting Cervical Cancer?(February 17, 2000)

This survey snapshot summarizes the results of a Foundation survey of women’s health care providers between May andAugust 2001. Findings show that a relatively small proportion 6 percent of gynecologists and 1 percent of general practice physicians had used the drug to provide early medical abortions in the nine months since distribution began. Gynecologists who currently or recently provided surgical abortions are most likely to report that they now offer medical abortions or plan to do so soon.

• Survey Snapshot:

Numerous studies over the past two decades have documented racial and ethnic differences in care for heart conditions. To assess the quality of the evidence and to summarize the information for a physician audience, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation collaborated with the American College of Cardiology Foundation to review the body of research on racial/ethnic differences in cardiac care.

There is credible evidence that minority patients are less likely than white patients to receive invasive cardiac procedures such as catheterization, angioplasty, bypass surgery and thrombolytic therapy even when patient characteristics are similar. These disparities remain even after adjusting for such factors as age, sex, insurance status and heart disease severity. Of the 81 studies investigating racial/ethnic differences in care over the past two decades, 68 found disparities in care for at least one of the racial/ethnic minority groups under study.

This report is one component of an initiative to raise physician awareness about disparities in medical care.

• Report

Numerous studies over the past two decades have documented racial and ethnic differences in care for heart conditions. To assess the quality of the evidence and to summarize the information for a physician audience, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation collaborated with the American College of Cardiology Foundation to review the body of research on racial/ethnic differences in cardiac care.

There is credible evidence that minority patients are less likely than white patients to receive invasive cardiac procedures such as catheterization, angioplasty, bypass surgery and thrombolytic therapy even when patient characteristics are similar. These disparities remain even after adjusting for such factors as age, sex, insurance status and heart disease severity. Of the 81 studies investigating racial/ethnic differences in care over the past two decades, 68 found disparities in care for at least one of the racial/ethnic minority groups under study.

Fact Sheet (.pdf)Summary Report (.pdf)Full Report (.pdf)

This publication provides state-by-state enrollment information and identifies national trends from the data. Some of the findings include:

The rate of Medicaid enrollment growth doubled during 2001.

Overall enrollment increased in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, with positive enrollment growth in the categories of families, children and pregnant women as well as the aged and disabled.

Data suggest that Medicaid continues to evolve from a welfare-based program to a more traditional health insurance program.

Report