Table

Published: May 31, 2000

SUMMARY OF CALIFORNIA VERSUS THE U

KEY HEALTH CARE FACTS IN CALIFORNIA AND THE U.S.

California

U.S.

Percentage uninsured (non-elderly) (1998)

24.4%

18.3%

Percentage of children uninsured (1998)

20.8%

15.5%

Percentage of non-elderly enrolled in Medicaid:

1998

11.1%

8.4%

1994

14.3%

10.0%

Percentage of employers that offer health insurance (1999)

48%

61%

Percentage of workers with access to coverage for “non-traditional” partners (1999)

31%

18%

Average monthly HMO premium for family coverage (1999)

$405

$445

Percentage of premium paid by covered workers (1999):

Single coverage

11%

16%

Family coverage

24%

32%

Percentage of workers enrolled in HMOs (1999)

53%

28%

Percentage of health care dollars spent on (1993):

Hospitals

37%

41%

Nursing home care

4%

8%

Physician services

31%

24%

Physicians mean net income (1997)

$172,400

$199,600

Average spent per Medicaid beneficiary (1997)

$2,418

$3,582

Health of Californians (1998):

Overall percentage saying they re in fair to poor health

15%

13%

Percentage of Hispanics saying they re in fair to poor health

23.8%

14.8%

Percentage of the population living in poverty (1998)

15.4%

12.7%

Online Resources-Online.doc-20000613a-Online-doc

Published: May 31, 2000

Online Resources

KFF Resources

Daily Reproductive Health Reports on RU-486 and MifepristoneOffers a retrospective look at the debate, using the archives of this daily report.Abortion, Issue Update May 1999 Highlights the clinical and political issues regarding abortion.From the Patient’s Perspective: the Quality of Abortion Care May 1999 – Women’s views and perceptions of the quality of care they have received.Abortion in the U.S., Fact SheetSeptember 1998 – Offers some useful background statistics on abortion in the United States.

Will 1999 Be The Year For Mifepristone (RU-486) And, An Update on Women’s Other Options for Very Early Abortion, Q & ASeptember 16, 1998 – Examines some of the questions regarding Mifepristone.

National Survey of Women’s Health Care Providers on Medical AbortionSeptember 16, 1998 – Examined provider views of Medical abortion techniques, such as Mifepristone.Content Analysis: Sexual Health Coverage in Women’s, Men’s and Teen MagazinesApril 1997 – An assessment of magazine content, specifically looking at how these specialty magazines dealt with such subjects as abortion.

General Background American Medical Association – Publications list on Mifepristone.

FDA Approvable Letter for MifepristoneFebruary 18, 2000 – According to the FDA: “An approvable letter does not give a company permission to begin marketing the drug.” The FDA issued a prior approvable letter for mifepristone to the “Population Council in September 1996, indicating that the agency believed the drug to be safe and effective, but that unresolved issues remained, including questions about manufacturing.”

FDA Archives on Mifepristone – Offers information from FDA on-line files regarding this controversial drug.

FDA Consumer Magazine – Mifepristone – This update from May/June 2000 offers some information on the approval process.

Medline search on Mifepristone – articles from various journals .

Merck Manual Home Edition – Information Family Planning Methods, including background on medical abortion methods.

Mifepristone – Prescription Drug Reference on WebMD offers general information on the drug.

New England Journal of Medicine – Articles on Mifepristone.

The Recent Debate

Family Research Council Press Release – A pro-life perspective on FDA’s decision.

National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League Press Release – A pro-choice perspective.

Organizations Involved in the Debate

Alan Guttmacher Institute – reproductive health research, policy analysis and public education.

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Reproductive Rights Project – Site features information on reproductive rights in Congress and other related legal issues such as privacy and equality.

American Life League – a pro-life organization.

Center for Reproductive Law and Policy (CRLP) – independent, non-profit legal organization “dedicated to promoting women’s health and rights.”

Life Issues Institute – a pro-life organization that seeks to assure “equal protection under the law for all living humans.”

National Right to Life Committee – a public policy group that is dedicated to “the protection of all human life.”

National Abortion Federation (NAF) – A professional association of abortion providers in the United States, providing information on options for pregnant women, information on abortion issues and violence at clinics, as well as fact sheets for providers.

Pacific Institute for Women’s Health – a group dedicated to improving women’s health through research, advocacy, community involvement, consultation, and training.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America – a national family planning organization that supports the use of Mifepristone.

Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S. – Promotes comprehensive education about sexuality, and advocates the right of individuals to “make responsible sexual choices.”

Women’s Reproductive Health Resources American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (ACOG) – Site provides fact sheets on all aspects of women’s reproductive health, including abortion.

Association of Reproductive Health Professionals – Organization dedicated to educating health care professionals and the public on family planning, contraception and other reproductive health issues.

FDA’s Office of Women’s Health

OBGYN.net – A site for medical professionals and women, which offers various obstetrical and gynecological information resources.

Society for Women’s Health Research – Offers a reading list on women’s health issues, including publications on abortion.

Speaker Biographies

Published: May 31, 2000

Sandra P

SPEAKER BIOGRAPHIES

SANDRA P. ARNOLD

Sandra P. Arnold is Vice President, Corporate Affairs, and Acting Secretary of the Population Council. Her responsibilities encompass information systems, finance and accounting, human resources, publications and public information, contract administration, product licensing, legal affairs, and industry relationships. As manager of the business aspects of the Council’s operations, Ms. Arnold is liaison with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the approval of mifepristone. The Council holds the U.S. rights to mifepristone.

The Council is an independent, nonprofit research organization dedicated to improving reproductive health throughout the world, and to achieving a sustainable balance between population and resources. To attain these goals, the Council conducts research in the social, health, and biomedical sciences.

WENDY CHAVKIN, M.D., M.P.H.

Wendy Chavkin, M.D., M.P.H. has been active on a host of reproductive health issues. Her clinical training is in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Her Master s of Public Health (MPH) is in Reproductive Epidemiology, and she is Board Certified in Public Health and Preventive Medicine. Dr. Chavkin directed the Bureau of Maternity Services and Family Planning at the New York City Department of Health from 1984 to 1988. She is Professor of Clinical Public Health and Ob/Gyn at Columbia University s Joseph L. Mailman School of Public Health and the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Dr. Chavkin assumed the position of Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association in 1994. She is also a member of the Board of Directors of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health (PRCH) and is Associate Editor for Women’s Health Policy at the American Journal of Public Health. She has written extensively about women’s reproductive health issues, including her 1994 book Double Exposures: Women’s Health Hazards at the Job and at Home.

TINA HOFF

Tina Hoff is the Director of Public Health Information and Communication for the Media and Public Education Program at the Kaiser Family Foundation. She oversees the release of Foundation-commissioned research and several communications-related programs, including an ongoing media briefing series on reproductive health issues and the Talking with Kids campaign. She is involved with many of the Foundation’s special partnerships focusing on public education, including a briefing series for Latino journalists and a joint collaboration on women’s reproductive health with Essence, Latina, and the L.A. Times. At the Foundation, Ms. Hoff has also worked on several studies of media coverage of health and reproductive health issues, including content analyses of the sexual and reproductive health coverage in women’s, men’s, teen, and other specialty magazines, a 10-year study of news coverage of HIV/AIDS, the sexual content on television’s family hour, and the sexual content on television soap operas and talk shows. Ms. Hoff joined the Foundation in 1994 as a program officer in communications.

Previously, Ms. Hoff worked for a Washington, D.C.-based public affairs firm, The Widmeyer-Baker Group, representing primarily non-profit organizations focused on health care and women’s and children’s issues. She received a B.S. in Commerce from the University of Virginia.

CAROLE JOFFE, PH.D.

Carole Joffe is a professor of sociology at the University of California, Davis. She received her Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California, Berkeley. Her research focuses on the social dimensions of reproductive health, with a particular interest in abortion provision. She is the author of Doctors of Conscience: The Struggle to Provide Abortion Before and after Roe v. Wade (Beacon Press). Dr. Joffe has recently received grants from the Open Society Institute and the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation to investigate the potential impact of the coming of medical abortion to the United States. Some recent articles which have resulted from this research are “Reactions to Medical Abortion Among Surgical Abortion Providers: An Early Snapshot,” Family Planning Perspectives; “Will Medical Abortion Increase Access to Abortion Services? A Cautionary Tale,” Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association; and Medical Abortion in Social Context,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, special supplement on medical abortion (forthcoming, August 2000).

ERIC SCHAFF, M.D.

Eric Schaff is an unusual academic pediatrician with a specialty in adolescent medicine. In 1994, he began studying medical abortion with methotrexate at the University of Rochester. In 1996, Dr. Schaff became the principal investigator of the Abortion Rights Mobilization multicenter trials with mifepristone. They have completed five trials with almost 6000 women.

In 1997, he was trained in first trimester surgical abortions at Planned Parenthood New York City s Abortion Training Program and has been providing this service since. He now directs one of eight Kenneth J. Ryan Family Planning and Abortion Fellowship programs. He is currently a full professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Rochester and is a board member of the National Abortion Federation and the National Medical Committee of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Dr. Schaff also serves as an Attending in Pediatrics at Strong Memorial Hospital, as Courtesy Attending in Pediatrics at Highland Hospital, and is a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Adolescent Health, and the Rochester Academy of Medicine – Pediatric Society.

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?

Published: May 31, 2000

For almost 20 years, women’s health advocates have been pushing for U.S. approval of mifepristone (also known as “RU-486”), a non-surgical abortion method that European women have used for a decade. Now that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seems poised to give the final go-ahead, the big question is: So what happens next? Will mifepristone make abortion more “private,” allowing women and doctors to avoid the threats and protests that have plagued many clinics? Will it motivate more health care providers to offer abortion services, thus making the procedure more accessible? And will women choose it when given the option?

A panel of experts, including Sandra Arnold, Vice President for Corporate Affairs at the Population Council; Eric Schaff, MD, University of Rochester School of Medicine; Carole Joffe, PhD, University of California at Davis, Department of Sociology; and Wendy Chavkin, MD, MPH, Columbia University School of Public Health, and Editor, Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association discussed at an Emerging Issues in Reproductive Health Briefing how women and health care providers will respond to mifepristone, the realities of providing medical abortions, and the likely impact that mifepristone will have on abortion practice and politics.

Recently released national survey data of ob/gyns and family practice physicians was discussed.

Briefing Resources:

New Report Looks at Health Care Trends in California Compared to Rest of Nation

Published: May 31, 2000

A new chartbook by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that on most, though not all indicators, California’s health care system fares poorly when compared to the U.S. as a whole. The report, Health Care Trends and Indicators in California and the United States, shows that many more Californians have no health insurance than in the rest of the U.S., but when they do have insurance it tends to be more comprehensive and cost less than elsewhere.

The report, which compares key trends and indicators in California’s health care system with those in the rest of the country, is authored by researchers at the Foundation and the Center for Health and Public Policy Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.

  • News Release: California’s Health Care System Looks Significantly Different From Rest of Nation’s

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? – Resource List

Published: May 31, 2000

Resource List

Resource List

If the FDA Approves Mifepristone . . . What Happens Next?

Will Doctors Provide It? Do Women Want It?

And, What Effect Will It Have on Abortion Politics?

Tuesday, June 13, 2000

BRIEFING PARTICIPANTSOTHER RESOURCESResearch and Medical PracticeLegal and Political IssuesEmerging Issues in Reproductive Health, Program Contacts

Briefing Participants

Sandra P. Arnold

Wendy Chavkin, MD, MPH

Tina Hoff

Carole Joffe, PhD

Eric A. Schaff, MD

Other Resources

Research and Medical Practice:

Mitchell D. Creinin, MD

David Grimes, MD

Richard Hausknecht, MD

Legal and Political Issues

Emerging Issues in Reproductive Health, Program Contacts:

Poll Finding

Issues in the 2000 Election:  Education

Published: May 31, 2000

Issues in the 2000 Election: Education

The Washington Post/Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard University national survey on “Issues in the 2000 Election: Education” is the first in a series of surveys examining policy issues in the 2000 national elections. This survey, conducted May 11-22, 2000, of a nationally representative sample of registered voters also included an oversample of “education-oriented” registered voters. This survey and all surveys in this series, are designed to provide a more in-depth look at the attitudes of issue-oriented voters and compare them to registered voters in general. Results from this survey were released by The Washington Post in June 2000.

agendaFIJune13.doc-20000613a-agendaFIJune13-doc

Published: May 31, 2000

If the FDA Approves Mifepristone . . . What Happens Next?

Will Doctors Provide It? Do Women Want It?And, What Effect Will It Have on Abortion Politics?

class=normal>Tuesday, June 13, 20009:30am – 11:30amBroadway Millennium Hotel, Rooms 304/30544th and Broadway, New York City

9:30 am Registration9:50 am Welcome/Introductions10:00 am News from the Frontlines: The Latest on Mifepristone

What’s Happening with the Food and Drug Administration?Sandra Arnold, Vice President for Corporate Affairs at the Population Council, will report on where FDA approval of mifepristone stands today.

. . . And, Will Doctors Provide Mifepristone Once It Is Approved? Tina Hoff, Director of Public Health Information and Communications, Kaiser Family Foundation, will present new data from an ongoing national survey of gynecologists and family practice doctors about their attitudes toward and likelihood of prescribing the drug.

10:45 am What Mifepristone Will Mean for Providers, Patients, and Abortion Politics

Ms. Hoff will moderate a discussion with leading experts on medical abortion about what happens after FDA approval:

, will talk about how and why he – as a family practice specialist – got involved in medical abortion research and what his work says about the ways women and health care providers will respond to mifepristone;

  • Carole Joffe, PhD, University of California at Davis, Department of Sociology
  • , will discuss her research – including extensive interviews with physicians – about the day-to-day realities of providing medical abortions; and

  • Wendy Chavkin, MD, MPH, Columbia University School of Public Health,
  • and Editor, Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association, will reveal findings from the journal’s just-released special issue on medical abortion – including the likely impact on abortion practice and politics.

    11:30 a.m. Questions and Answers

    National Survey of Consumer Experiences with Health Plans

    Published: May 30, 2000

    A national survey of 2,500 insured adult Americans on their experiences with health plans-documents problems people have experienced with their plans, the impact of those problems, and how people resolve their disputes with their health plans. The survey was designed and analyzed by the Kaiser Family Foundation staff with advice and input from Consumer Reports under a joint project developed to help consumers resolve difficulties with health plans. Highlights from the survey were featured in the July issue of Consumer Reports along with findings from a similar readership survey conducted by the magazine.

    Most Consumers Generally Positive About Their Health Plan, But 51% Report Having Some Problem in the Past

    Published: May 30, 2000

    The majority of Americans are satisfied with their health insurance plan, but most insured adults in the United States have had some problem with their health plan in the last year according to a new survey released by the Kaiser Family Foundation

    EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE:

    Until 4 p.m. ET Wednesday June 7, 2000

    2400 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA 94025

     

    For further information contact:

    Jennifer Morales (202) 347-5270

    Amy Weitz (650) 234-9211

     

    MOST CONSUMERS GENERALLY POSITIVE ABOUT THEIR HEALTH PLAN, BUT FIFTY-ONE PERCENT REPORT HAVING SOME PROBLEM IN THE PAST YEAR

    Few Consumers Are Aware of Mechanisms Available for Resolving Disputes

    (Washington, DC) Although Americans report mostly positive experiences with their health insurance plans, one in two say they’ve had a problem with their plan in the last year, according to a new survey released by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Most problems appear minor and easy to resolve, but a significant minority involve serious reported consequences and are difficult to settle.

    The survey of 2,500 insured adults ages 18-64 found that most consumers are confused about where to turn for help in resolving problems with their health plans, especially with regard to the right to appeal health plan decisions to an independent expert. The survey was designed and analyzed by Kaiser Family Foundation staff with advice and input from Consumer Reports under a joint project developed to help consumers resolve difficulties with health plans. Highlights from the survey will be featured in the July issue of Consumer Reports.

    “When one out of every two people reports having a problem with their health plan, it suggests that the pressure behind the patients’ rights debate is grounded in real patient experiences, not just anecdotes,” said Drew Altman, Ph.D., president of the Kaiser Family Foundation. “But we also need to keep in mind that most of these problems are more hassle than horror story,” he added.

    Consumer Experience Influences Satisfaction with Health Plan

    Most people (83%) who have had contact with their plan in the last year say that their recent experiences in dealing with their plan have been positive. Even among those who say they have had a problem with their plan, most (71%) report their recent experiences as positive.

    In fact, most people appear satisfied with their plan overall — 64% give their plan a grade of A or B. However, those in “strict” managed care plans (with features common in HMOs) grade their plans lower (53% give an A or B) than those in “loose” managed care plans (70% give their plan an A or B) or those remaining in traditional health insurance (of whom 74% give their plan an A or B).

    Problems Reported by Consumers

    Overall, 51% of insured Americans under age 65 report having some problem with their health plan in the last year. Women, those in “strict” managed care plans, and those who are in fair or poor health or who have a health condition are most likely to report problems.

    Types of problems

    The types of problems reported involved:

    • Delays or denials of coverage or care (reported by 17% of all people and 32% of people with problems),
    • Difficulty seeing a physician (14% of all people; 27% of people with problems),
    • Billing and payment problems (12% of all people; 23% of people with problems), and
    • Problems related to communication or customer service difficulties (7% of all people; 14% of people with problems).

    Consequences of the Problems

    More than a third (38%) of people who report problems with their health plan said there was no financial consequence, time lost from life activities, or impact on health status. Forty-three percent of those who reported problems identified moderate overall consequences, while 18% (or 9% of all insured adults) identified more serious consequences.

    Financial Consequences: Almost two in five (38%) of people experiencing problems (or 19% of all insured adults) say there was a financial consequence to the problem (i.e., they ended up paying more for treatment or services than they normally would have).

    In most cases (53%) where there was a problem that had a financial consequence, the amount at issue was under $200. In 14% of these cases (5% of those with a problem), there was a cost of $1,000 or more.

    Lost Time: About one in five (21%) of people experiencing problems say they lost time from work, school, or other major life activities as a result. While most cases involved relatively little time lost, it amounted to at least a week in 28% of these cases.

    Health Declines: About one in five (21%) of people with problems say they experienced a decline in health as a result. Most said it was “not too serious,” though a small minority (6% of those with a problem of any kind) said the decline resulted in a permanent or long-lasting disability.

    “While many of the problems reported have relatively minor consequences, they clearly cause aggravation,” said Mollyann Brodie, Ph.D., vice president for Public Opinion and Media Research for the Kaiser Family Foundation. Sixty-two percent of people experiencing problems said it caused them stress (28% “a lot,” 34% “some”). In general, people reported similar levels of stress for dealing with their health insurance company as for doing their taxes and dealing with their auto mechanic.

    Problem Resolution

    The survey showed that most people who had a problem with their health plan sought some means inside their plan to resolve the problem, while few turned to external resources.

    • 73% contacted someone at the plan or their own physician
    • 46% referred to plan documents for information
    • 25% contacted a friend or family member for assistance.

    Only 21% of those with a problem contacted someone outside of their plan for help, including 13% who contacted someone at work whose job it is to deal with health insurance issues, just 2% who contacted a state agency and 1% each who contacted a lawyer or an elected official. Six percent filed a formal appeal including 1% who filed with an independent review organization.

    Most people are satisfied with the resolution to their problems–nearly half said their problem was resolved to their satisfaction. Twenty-three percent said it was resolved, but not the way they would have liked, and 28% said their problem had not yet been resolved.

    More serious problems appear to be more difficult to resolve. Among those whose problems had a high impact (involving financial consequences, lost time, or reported health declines), only 20% said the problem was resolved to their satisfaction, 31% said it was resolved but not the way they would have liked, and 49% said the problem had not yet been resolved.

    Many problems are resolved relatively quickly; 40% of those whose problems had been resolved said it took less than a week. However a substantial number take much longer 29% took more than a month to resolve.

    When asked what resources would be helpful in resolving health plan problems, people gave the highest marks to appeals to an independent medical expert (87% said it would be “very” or “somewhat” helpful), an independent place to turn for help (84%), and someone at work whose job it is to deal with health insurance issues (81%). Somewhat fewer people identified a state agency (74%), or the right to sue (69%) as helpful.

    Consumer Awareness

    Most people appear confused about where to go for help if they have a problem with their health plan and whether they have a right to appeal health plan decisions to an independent expert. The vast majority (89%) of people say they do not know the name of the state agency that regulates HMOs and other health plans. Forty percent of people do not know whether they have the right to appeal a health plan decision to the state or to an independent medical expert.

    In the 21 states (including DC) where consumers did have that right at the time of the survey (33 states currently offer the right to at least some people), 54% of consumers either said they did not have that right, didn’t know or didn’t answer the question. And in the states that did not provide the right to an independent appeal at the time of the survey, 39% of consumers thought mistakenly that they did have such a right.

    “As Congress debates giving patients new rights, the truth is that most people remain in the dark about some they already have. Some states are way ahead of Congress on this issue, but most people who live in these states don’t even know it,” said Larry Levitt, director of The Changing Health Care Marketplace Project for the Kaiser Family Foundation.

    For more information about the Consumer Reports Survey, contact Joan Tripi at: (914) 378-2436.

     

    Methodology

    The Kaiser Family Foundation National Survey of Consumer Experiences with Health Plans was designed and analyzed by researchers at the Kaiser Family Foundation. Fieldwork was conducted by telephone by Princeton Survey Research Associates between October 20 and December 8, 1999. The survey included a nationally representative random sample of 2,500 adults age 18 to 64 who have health coverage other than Medicare. Interviews were conducted in both English and Spanish. The margin of sampling error for the total sample is plus or minus 2 percentage points. For the 1,278 respondents who experienced some problem with their health plan in the past year, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points. The margin of sampling error may be higher for some of the other sub-groups as noted in the analysis.

    Because many people are unsure of – or don’t know — what kind of health insurance they have, respondents were asked a series of questions about their health plan to establish what type of coverage they actually have. They were asked if they were required to do any of the following by their plan: choose doctors from a list and pay more for doctors not on the list; select a primary care doctor or medical group; and/or obtain a referral before seeing a medical specialist or a doctor outside the plan. Respondents were listed as being in “strict” managed care if they reported their plans had all of these characteristics; listed as being in “loose” managed care if they had some but not all; and were listed as having “traditional” health insurance if they reported their plans had none of these characteristics.

    In order to classify respondents into groups based on the overall impact of their problem with their health plan, we developed a scoring system related to the severity of the reported impact of the problem across four dimensions: 1) how long care was delayed, 2) financial impact, 3) health status impact, and 4) time loss from work or other activities.

    This survey was produced as part of a joint project between Consumer Reports and the Kaiser Family Foundation designed to improve how consumers resolve problems with their health insurance plans. Under the project, researchers at the Kaiser Family Foundation designed and conducted this national survey of consumers, with advice and input from Consumer Reports staff. Articles appearing in Consumer Reports in conjunction with this project were produced with full editorial control by the magazine.

    The Kaiser Family Foundation, based in Menlo Park, California, is a nonprofit, independent national health care philanthropy and is not associated with Kaiser Permanente or Kaiser Industries. Copies of the survey toplines and chartpack publication #3025 are available online at /, or by calling the Foundation’s Publications Request Line at 1-800-656-4533.