Constrained least squares estimation of payment lag distributions in the United States' Medical Assistance Program

2006 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry Griffin ◽  
John Powell
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Egilius L. H. Spierings ◽  
Mikko Kärppä ◽  
Xiaoping Ning ◽  
Joshua M. Cohen ◽  
Verena Ramirez Campos ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The FOCUS study evaluated the efficacy of migraine preventive medications across different countries within the same patient population, particularly for patients with difficult-to-treat migraine. These prespecified subgroup analyses evaluated efficacy by country in the FOCUS study of fremanezumab in adults with episodic migraine or chronic migraine and documented inadequate response to 2 to 4 migraine preventive medication classes. Methods Overall, 838 participants were enrolled in the FOCUS study, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3b study performed at 104 sites. For 12 weeks of double-blind treatment, patients were randomized (1:1:1) to quarterly fremanezumab, monthly fremanezumab, or matched placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean change from baseline in monthly average migraine days over 12 weeks of double-blind treatment, evaluated by country in these subgroup analyses. Results Of 14 countries contributing data, the Czech Republic (n = 188/838; 22%), the United States (n = 120/838; 14%), and Finland (n = 85/838; 10%) enrolled the most patients. Changes from baseline in monthly average migraine days over 12 weeks were significantly greater with fremanezumab versus placebo for patients in these countries: Czech Republic (least-squares mean difference versus placebo [95% confidence interval]: quarterly fremanezumab, − 1.9 [− 3.25, − 0.47]; P = 0.009; monthly fremanezumab, − 3.0 [− 4.39, − 1.59]; P < 0.001), the United States (quarterly fremanezumab, − 3.7 [− 5.77, − 1.58]; P < 0.001; monthly fremanezumab, − 4.2 [− 6.23, − 2.13]; P < 0.001), and Finland (quarterly fremanezumab, − 3.0 [− 5.32, − 0.63]; P = 0.014; monthly fremanezumab, − 3.9 [− 6.27, − 1.44]; P = 0.002). Results were comparable for the remaining 9 countries, with the least-squares mean difference versus placebo ranging from – 5.6 to – 2.4 with quarterly fremanezumab and from − 5.3 to − 1.5 with monthly fremanezumab. Incidences of serious adverse events and adverse events leading to discontinuation were low and comparable across countries and treatment groups. Conclusions Monthly and quarterly fremanezumab significantly reduced the monthly average number of migraine days versus placebo regardless of country and continent (North America versus Europe) in migraine patients with documented inadequate response to 2 to 4 migraine preventive medication classes. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03308968.


2020 ◽  
Vol 110 (7) ◽  
pp. 1006-1008
Author(s):  
Lauren Lizewski ◽  
Grace Flaherty ◽  
Parke Wilde ◽  
Ross Brownson ◽  
Claire Wang ◽  
...  

Objectives. To assess stakeholder perceptions of the impact and feasibility of 21 national, state, and local nutrition policies for cancer prevention across 5 domains in the United States. Methods. We conducted an online survey from October through December 2018. Participants were invited to take the survey via direct e-mail contact or an organizational e-newsletter. Results. Federal or state Medicare/Medicaid coverage of nutrition counseling and federal or state subsidies on fruits, vegetables, and whole grains for participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program were the policies rated as having the highest perceived impact and feasibility. Overall, the 170 respondents rated policy impact higher than policy feasibility. Polices at the federal or state level had a higher perceived impact, whereas local policies had higher perceived feasibility. Conclusions. Our findings might guide future research and advocacy that can ultimately motivate and target policy actions to reduce cancer burdens and disparities in the United States.


Author(s):  
Jason M Nagata ◽  
Hilary K Seligman ◽  
Sheri D Weiser

ABSTRACT During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, food insecurity has doubled overall and tripled among households with children in the United States. Food insecurity and COVID-19 may exacerbate one another through bidirectional links, leading to a syndemic, or sequential disease clusters, which exacerbate one another. Experiencing food insecurity may be associated with macronutrient and micronutrient deficiencies, which can weaken host defenses, thus increasing susceptibility to COVID-19. Food insecurity is associated with chronic medical conditions, which may afford a higher risk of severe COVID-19 illness. People experiencing food insecurity may have increased exposure to COVID-19 while procuring food. People with COVID-19 may be unable to work, generate income, and procure food while quarantined, which may exacerbate food insecurity. Clinicians should screen for food insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic and provide referrals to food-assistance programs when appropriate. Policymakers should expand benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) to address increases in the depth and breadth of food insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic.


2019 ◽  
Vol 49 (8) ◽  
pp. 897-913 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone J. Domingue ◽  
Christopher T. Emrich

To date, there has been limited research conducted on disaster aid allocation across multiple regions and disasters within the United States. In addition, there is a paucity of research specifically connecting social indicators of vulnerability to public assistance grants aimed at restoring, rebuilding, and mitigating against future damages in disasters. Given these gaps, this article inquires as to whether the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) public assistance program is characterized by procedural inequities, or disparate outcomes for counties with more socially vulnerable populations. Specifically, this article analyzes county-level FEMA’s Public Assistance distribution following major disaster declarations, while controlling for damages sustained, population, household counts, and FEMA Region. Results indicate that FEMA’s Public Assistance program operates well when accounting only for disaster losses across the years, however, findings also show that county social conditions influence funding receipt. Although socioeconomic characteristics were significant drivers of assistance spending, additional vulnerability indicators related to county demographic and built environment characteristics were also important drivers of receipt. Cases of both procedural inequity and equity are highlighted, and implications for equitable disaster recovery are discussed along with recommendations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document