No abstract

No abstract

Racial and ethnic disparities in mental health care access in the United States are well documented. Prior studies highlight the importance of individual and community factors such as health insurance coverage, language and cultural barriers, and socioeconomic differences, though these factors fail to explain the extent of measured disparities. A critical factor in mental health care access is a local area’s organization and supply of mental health care providers. However, it is unclear how geographic differences in provider organization and supply impact racial/ethnic disparities. The present study is the first analysis of a nationally representative U.S. sample to identify contextual factors (county-level provider organization and supply, as well as socioeconomic characteristics) associated with use of mental health care services and how these factors differ across racial/ethnic groups. Hierarchical logistic models were used to examine racial/ethnic differences in the association of county-level provider organization (health maintenance organization (HMO) penetration) and supply (density of specialty mental health providers and existence of a community mental health center) with any use of mental health services and specialty mental health services. Models controlled for individual- and county-level socio-demographic and mental health characteristics. Increased county-level supply of mental health care providers was significantly associated with greater use of any mental health services and any specialty care, and these positive associations were greater for Latinos and African-Americans compared to non-Latino Whites. Expanding the mental health care workforce holds promise for reducing racial/ethnic disparities in mental health care access. Policymakers should consider that increasing the management of mental health care may not only decrease expenditures, but also provide a potential lever for reducing mental health care disparities between social groups.

Physicians should place greater value on informed consent and discussing practical aspects of testing, and physicians and nurse practitioners should pay more attention to the limitations of testing children, insurance discrimination, and consumers' desire for provider recommendations. In light of the limited discordance between nurse practitioners and consumers, nurse practitioners can play an increasing role in education and counseling about BCST.

Scientific support about the concept of using molecular data for risk stratification and tailoring health-care interventions to the individual--a strategy broadly defined as molecular medicine (MM)--is accumulating. Molecular-based health-care technologies are beginning to enter clinical practice, but their use has revealed many scientific, economic, and organizational barriers to the effective delivery of targeted health care. We conducted a qualitative interview study to describe the MM landscape, with an emphasis on eliciting policy recommendations for the field from a broad range of stakeholders in MM and health care. Molecular medicine has widespread support but will require changes in how molecular-based technologies are evaluated, how health care is financed and delivered, and how clinicians and consumers are trained and prepared for its use. In particular, researchers and developers need to become active participants in a variety of clinical integration strategies to realize the promise of MM.