No abstract

Gay and bisexual men and other men who have sex with men (MSM) account for more than two thirds of new HIV infections in the U.S., with Black MSM experiencing the greatest burden. Antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) can reduce MSM's vulnerability to HIV infection. Uptake of PrEP has been limited, particularly among racial and ethnic minority MSM. Four semi-structured focus groups with gay and bisexual men and other MSM at risk for HIV infection were convened in Boston and Jackson in late 2013. The analysis plan utilized a within-case, across-case approach to code and analyze emerging themes, and to compare results across the two cities. Participants recruited in Jackson were primarily Black gay men, while Boston participants were mostly non-Hispanic White gay men. Participants in both sites shared concerns about medication side effects and culturally insensitive health care for gay men. Jackson participants described stronger medical mistrust, and more frequently described experiences of anti-gay and HIV related stigma. Multiple addressable barriers to PrEP uptake were described. Information about side effects should be explicitly addressed in PrEP education campaigns. Providers and health departments should address medical mistrust, especially among Black gay and bisexual men and other MSM, in part by training providers in how to provide affirming, culturally competent care. Medicaid should be expanded in Mississippi to cover low-income young Black gay and bisexual men and other MSM.

BackgroundThe Institute of Medicine and The Joint Commission have recommended asking sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) questions in clinical settings and including such data in Electronic Health Records (EHRs). This is increasingly viewed as a critical step toward systematically documenting and addressing health disparities affecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. The U.S. government is currently considering whether to include SOGI data collection in the Stage 3 guidelines for the incentive program promoting meaningful use of EHR. However, some have questioned whether acceptable standard measures to collect SOGI data in clinical settings exist.MethodsIn order to better understand how a diverse group of patients would respond if SOGI questions were asked in primary care settings, 301 randomly selected patients receiving primary care at four health centers across the U.S. were asked SOGI questions and then asked follow-up questions. This sample was mainly heterosexual, racially diverse, and geographically and regionally broad.ResultsThere was a strong consensus among patients surveyed about the importance of asking SOGI questions. Most of the LGBT respondents thought that the questions presented on the survey allowed them to accurately document their SOGI. Most respondents—heterosexual and LGBT—answered the questions, and said that they would answer such questions in the future. While there were some age-related differences, respondents of all ages overwhelmingly expressed support for asking SOGI questions and understood the importance of providers' knowing their patients' SOGI.ConclusionsGiven current deliberations within national health care regulatory bodies and the government's increased attention to LGBT health disparities, the finding that patients can and will answer SOGI questions has important implications for public policy. This study provides evidence that integrating SOGI data collection into the meaningful use requirements is both acceptable to diverse samples of patients, including heterosexuals, and feasible.

The Institute of Medicine's (IOM's) 2011 report on the health of LGBT people pointed out that there are limited health data on these populations and that we need more research. It also described what we do know about LGBT health disparities, including lower rates of cervical cancer screening among lesbians, and mental health issues related to minority stress. Patient disclosure of LGBT identity enables provider-patient conversations about risk factors and can help us reduce and better understand disparities. It is essential to the success of Healthy People 2020's goal of eliminating LGBT health disparities. This is why the IOM's report recommended data collection in clinical settings and on electronic health records (EHRs). The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Office of the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology rejected including sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) questions in meaningful use guidelines for EHRs in 2012 but are considering this issue again in 2013. There is overwhelming community support for the routine collection of SOGI data in clinical settings, as evidenced by comments jointly submitted by 145 leading LGBT and HIV/AIDS organizations in January 2013. Gathering SOGI data in EHRs is supported by the 2011 IOM's report on LGBT health, Healthy People 2020, the Affordable Care Act, and the Joint Commission. Data collection has long been central to the quality assurance process. Preventive health care from providers knowledgeable of their patients' SOGI can lead to improved access, quality of care, and outcomes. Medical and nursing schools should expand their attention to LGBT health issues so that all clinicians can appropriately care for LGBT patients.

Policy Points:r Since 2012, Massachusetts law has provided legal protections against discrimination on the basis of gender identity in employment, housing, credit, public education, and hate crimes. The law does not protect against discrimination based on gender identity in public accommodations settings such as transportation, retail stores, restaurants, health care facilities, and bathrooms.r A 2013 survey of Massachusetts transgender and other gender minority adults found that in the past 12 months, 65% had experienced public accommodations discrimination since the law was passed. This discrimination was associated with a greater risk of adverse emotional and physical symptoms in the past 30 days.r Nondiscrimination laws inclusive of gender identity should protect against discrimination in public accommodations settings to support transgender people's health and their ability to access health care.Context: Gender minority people who are transgender or gender nonconforming experience widespread discrimination and health inequities. Since 2012, The Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 93, No. 3, 2015 (pp. 484-515) Protecting Transgender People in Public Accommodations 485Massachusetts law has provided protections against discrimination on the basis of gender identity in employment, housing, credit, public education, and hate crimes. The law does not, however, protect against discrimination in public accommodations (eg, hospitals, health centers, transportation, nursing homes, supermarkets, retail establishments). For this article, we examined the frequency and health correlates of public accommodations discrimination among gender minority adults in Massachusetts, with attention to discrimination in health care settings. Methods:In 2013, we recruited a community-based sample (n = 452) both online and in person. The respondents completed a 1-time, electronic survey assessing demographics, health, health care utilization, and discrimination in public accommodations venues in the past 12 months. Using adjusted multivariable logistic regression models, we examined whether experiencing public accommodations discrimination in health care was independently associated with adverse self-reported health, adjusting for discrimination in other public accommodations settings.Findings: Overall, 65% of respondents reported public accommodations discrimination in the past 12 months. The 5 most prevalent discrimination settings were transportation (36%), retail (28%), restaurants (26%), public gatherings (25%), and health care (24%). Public accommodations discrimination in the past 12 months in health care settings was independently associated with a 31% to 81% increased risk of adverse emotional and physical symptoms and a 2-fold to 3-fold increased risk of postponement of needed care when sick or injured and of preventive or routine health care, adjusting for discrimination in other public accommodations settings (which also conferred an additional 20% to 77% risk per discrimination setting endorsed).Conclusions: Discrimination in publ...

At present, the health care infrastructure is ill-equipped to handle the unique treatment and care needs of HIV-positive older adults. The long-term effects of antiretroviral use are still being discovered and have been associated with a number of comorbidities. Stigma presents challenges for those in need of services and health care, and can significantly affect mental health and treatment adherence. The training of elder service providers and health care providers in meeting the needs of HIV-positive older adults, including gay and transgender people, is needed as the population ages. HIV-related and antigay stigma should be challenged by social marketing campaigns. Continued research and key policy changes could greatly improve health outcomes for HIV-positive elderly persons by increasing access to treatment and support.

Final rules issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology in October 2015 require electronic health record software certified for Meaningful Use to include sexual orientation and gender identity (SO/GI) fields. This is a critical step toward making SO/GI data collection a standard practice in clinical settings. Sexual orientation identity-whether one identifies as gay, lesbian, or bisexual-correlates with behavioral health burden, and it is important to collect these data. Providers should also collect sex assigned at birth data as well as current gender identity data. Training of clinical staff in collection and use of SO/GI data, education of LGBT patients, and SO/GI nondiscrimination policies are critical for successful implementation.

The parallel growth of urban areas and wild boar populations in recent years has increased the presence of this species around cities and in suburban areas, often leading to conflict with local people. In the Collserola Natural Park, situated within the metropolitan area of Barcelona, wild boar have become habituated to humans and urban settings because of direct feeding by local residents. Their attraction to these areas due to an abundance of anthropogenic food sources is especially strong during the warmer summer season when foraging conditions are poorer in their natural woodland habitat; the number of captures of habituated wild boar in peri–urban areas is significantly correlated with mean monthly temperatures. Habituated boar are primarily matriarchal groups, whereas adult and sub–adult (>1 year) males are significantly less represented than in non–habituated boars. In Collserola, habituated sub–adult and adult females are significantly heavier than their non–habituated counterparts and these weight differences increase with age; in the > 3 year–old age class they may be 35% heavier. Conflicts generated by the presence of wild boar in peri–urban areas are complex, and the responses by authorities are similarly diverse and often exacerbated by ambivalent public attitudes, both towards wild boar presence and applied mitigation measures. By 2010, at least 44 cities in 15 countries had reported problems of some kind relating to the presence of wild boar or feral pigs.