Child poverty in the United States is widespread and has serious negative effects on the health and well-being of children throughout their life course. Child health providers are considering ways to redesign their practices in order to mitigate the negative effects of poverty on children and support the efforts of families to lift themselves out of poverty. To do so, practices need to adopt effective methods to identify poverty-related social determinants of health and provide effective interventions to address them. Identification of needs can be accomplished with a variety of established screening tools. Interventions may include resource directories, best maintained in collaboration with local/regional public health, community, and/or professional organizations; programs embedded in the practice (eg, Reach Out and Read, Healthy Steps for Young Children, Medical-Legal Partnership, Health Leads); and collaboration with home visiting programs. Changes to health care financing are needed to support the delivery of these enhanced services, and active advocacy by child health providers continues to be important in effecting change. We highlight the ongoing work of the Health Care Delivery Subcommittee of the Academic Pediatric Association Task Force on Child Poverty in defining the ways in which child health care practice can be adapted to improve the approach to addressing child poverty.

Background The US Department of State estimates that there are between 4 and 27 million individuals worldwide in some form of modern slavery. Recent studies have demonstrated that 28% to 50% of trafficking victims in the United States encountered health care professionals while in captivity, but were not identified and recognized. This study aimed to determine whether an educational presentation increased emergency department (ED) providers' recognition of human trafficking (HT) victims and knowledge of resources to manage cases of HT. Methods The 20 largest San Francisco Bay Area EDs were randomized into intervention (10 EDs) or delayed intervention comparison groups (10 EDs) to receive a standardized educational presentation containing the following: background about HT, relevance of HT to health care, clinical signs in potential victims, and referral options for potential victims. Participants in the delayed intervention group completed a pretest in the period the immediate intervention group received the educational presentation, and all participants were assessed immediately before (pretest) and after (posttest) the intervention. The intervention effect was tested by comparing the pre–post change in the intervention group to the change in 2 pretests in the delayed intervention group adjusted for the effect of clustering within EDs. The 4 primary outcomes were importance of knowledge of HT to the participant's profession (5-point Likert scale), self-rated knowledge of HT (5-point Likert scale), knowledge of who to call for potential HT victims (yes/no), and suspecting that a patient was a victim of HT (yes/no). Findings There were 258 study participants from 14 EDs; 141 from 8 EDs in the intervention group and 117 from 7 EDs in the delayed intervention comparison group, of which 20 served as the delayed intervention comparison group. Participants in the intervention group reported greater increases in their level of knowledge about HT versus those in the delayed intervention comparison group (1.42 vs −0.15; adjusted difference = 1.57 [95% confidence interval, 1.02–2.12]; P < 0.001). Pretest ratings of the importance of knowledge about HT to the participant's profession were high in both groups and there was no intervention effect (0.31 vs 0.55; −0.24 [−0.90–0.42], P = 0.49). Knowing who to call for potential HT victims increased from 7.2% to 59% in the intervention group and was unchanged (15%) in the delayed intervention comparison group (61.4% [28.5%–94.4%]; P < 0.01). The proportion of participants who suspected their patient was a victim of HT increased from 17% to 38% in the intervention group and remained unchanged (10%) in the delayed intervention comparison group (20.9 [8.6%– 33.1%]; P < 0.01). Interpretation A brief educational intervention increased ED provider knowledge and self-reported recognition of HT victims.

More than 20% of children nationally live in poverty. Pediatric primary care practices are critical points-of-contact for these patients and their families. Practices must consider risks that are rooted in poverty as they determine how to best deliver family-centered care and move toward action on the social determinants of health. The Practice-Level Care Delivery Subgroup of the Academic Pediatric Association's Task Force on Poverty has developed a roadmap for pediatric providers and practices to use as they adopt clinical practice redesign strategies aimed at mitigating poverty's negative impact on child health and well-being. The present article describes how care structures and processes can be altered in ways that align with the needs of families living in poverty. Attention is paid to both facilitators of and barriers to successful redesign strategies. We also illustrate how such a roadmap can be adapted by practices depending on the degree of patient need and the availability of practice resources devoted to intervening on the social determinants of health. In addition, ways in which practices can advocate for families in their communities and nationally are identified. Finally, given the relative dearth of evidence for many poverty-focused interventions in primary care, areas that would benefit from more in-depth study are considered. Such a focus is especially relevant as practices consider how they can best help families mitigate the impact of povertyrelated risks in ways that promote long-term health and well-being for children.abstract

The ACA establishes “essential health benefits” (EHBs) as the coverage standard for health plans sold in the individual and small group markets, including the health insurance Marketplace. “Pediatric services” are a required EHB coverage class. However, other than oral health and vision care, neither the statute nor the implementing regulations define the term. This study aimed to determine how state benchmark plans address pediatric coverage in EHB-governed plans. Our review of state benchmark plan summaries for all 50 states and D.C. found that no state specified a distinct “pediatric services” benefit class. Furthermore, although benchmark plans explicitly included multiple pediatric conditions, many state benchmark plans also specifically excluded services for children with special health care needs. These findings suggest important policy directions in preparing for the 2016 plan year.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract