�鶹Ů��

We compare health care coverage for children and parents under the ACA and under a reconciliation bill repealing the ACA similar to the one vetoed in January 2016, addressing two issues specific to children’s coverage: maintenance of eligibility and federal funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). We find that 4.4 million children and 7.6 million parents could lose coverage in 2019 if Congress’s budget reconciliation process repeals pieces of the ACA without a replacement plan. Under the repeal bill, states would be able to reduce Medicaid and CHIP eligibility for children beginning in 2017. We find that up to 9 million more children could lose coverage if states lower Medicaid/CHIP eligibility to the new minimum standards. (Buettgens, Kenney and Pan, 12/21)

Prior to the ACA’s full implementation, one in five women reported they postponed or went without preventive care because of cost, a much greater barrier for low-income and uninsured women. This factsheet summarizes the ACA preventive services policy’s impact on women, with a focus on the women’s services that are promulgated by HRSA. ... A repeal of the ACA as proposed by President-elect Trump would end the requirement that recommended preventive services be covered by private plans without cost sharing, unless this provision is included as part of replacement legislation. The specific preventive services for women that were updated and promulgated by HRSA, however, could also be eliminated or scaled back by administrative action. (12/20)

Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, this study found that while the prevalence of hearing loss has continued to decline among adults aged 20 to 69 years, adult hearing loss is associated with increasing age, sex, race/ethnicity, educational level, and noise exposure. (Hoffman et al., 12/15)

This report highlights the successes and challenges of permanent supportive housing projects funded as part of the Missouri Foundation for Health’s Show Me Healthy Housing (SMHH) program. ... Permanent supportive housing combines long-term rental subsidies with community-based services. Tenants typically receive permanent rent subsidies for as long as they remain in the program and have access to case management and support services for house maintenance and personal well-being. ... Fifty-five percent of heads of households in the sites currently housing tenants had been chronically homeless before entering supportive housing, while 91 percent reported having a mental illness, 67 percent reported having a chronic health condition, and 36 percent were in fair or poor health. (Leopold et al., 12/14)

Expanding Medicaid -- the U.S. federal-state health insurance program for the poor -- gives people access to a broader array of hospital choices than they had when they were uninsured, a new study suggests. Often, people are choosing hospitals closer to home, researchers reported. The study uses data from two investor-owned hospital systems to see whether the 2014 Medicaid expansion provided under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) -- often called Obamacare -- affected emergency department use. (Pallarito, 12/20)

To look at helmeted children gliding down Colorado’s ski slopes like bundled-up lollipops is to see an image of careful safety. But, for years, researchers have debated about how effective helmets are at preventing head injuries — especially those such as concussions and other closed-head trauma. Do helmets actually keep kids safe on the slopes? Now, a new study by doctors at Children’s Hospital Colorado and the University of Colorado School of Medicine is adding to a growing body of research that shows helmets are important in lessening the severity of head injuries that kids may suffer while skiing or snowboarding — but only up to a point. (Ingold, 12/13)

In 2007, when [Nathan] Georgette was just 16, he published his first scientific paper, an article on immunity that appeared in the Internet Journal of Epidemiology — and which helped him win a prestigious high school scholarship. In 2009, Georgette published a second paper, this time in PLOS ONE, based on his earlier work. Georgette continued his research as a Harvard undergraduate, and it was then, in 2012, that he realized he’d made a mistaken assumption in his first article, one that wasn’t fatal to that 2007 paper — but was to the PLOS ONE paper. Georgette could have quietly let the matter drop. But rather than ignore his error, Georgette asked PLOS ONE to retract his paper. At the time, we commended Georgette for his “rigor and transparency” and for having the courage to do the right thing, even if it meant halving his list of publications. (Oransky and Marcus, 12/22)